Agriculture in China: Between self-sufficiency and global integration
Program Review Self‐Study College of Agriculture B.S ...
161
California State Polytechnic University Program Review Self‐Study College of Agriculture B.S. Agribusiness and Food Industry Management AY 2018‐2019
Transcript of Program Review Self‐Study College of Agriculture B.S ...
California State Polytechnic University
Program Review Self‐Study
College of Agriculture
B.S. Agribusiness and Food Industry Management
AY 2018‐2019
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Program Description ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Mission and Goals ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Reflection of Previous Self‐Study .................................................................................................. 6
Section 2. The Program Description .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Units to Degree ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Curriculum ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Section 3. Program Assessment ............................................................................................................... 25
3.1. Accreditation Status or Other External Assessments ................................................................. 25
3.2. Assessment Plan ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Assessment Consequences and Conclusions .............................................................................. 29
Section 4. Program Quality ...................................................................................................................... 32
4.1. Faculty ......................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2. Student Success .......................................................................................................................... 42
Section 5. Resources ................................................................................................................................ 56
5.1. Enrollment. .................................................................................................................................. 56
5.2. Faculty ......................................................................................................................................... 69
5.3. Library Resources ........................................................................................................................ 71
5.4. Additional Resources .................................................................................................................. 72
Section 6. Suggested Action Plan ............................................................................................................. 77
Section 7. External Review ....................................................................................................................... 80
Section 8. Department and Dean’s Post Review ..................................................................................... 81
Section 9. Faculty Participation ............................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A – Past Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 83
Appendix B – Curricula for other Institutions ............................................................................................. 84
Appendix C – Student Evaluation Forms ..................................................................................................... 94
Appendix D – Faculty Resumes ................................................................................................................... 95
3 | P a g e
Section 1. Introduction
1.1. Program Description1
‘The Agribusiness and Food Industry Management program focuses on business applications that
support the agricultural industry. The major offers a wide selection of coursework designed for students
to assume leadership positions in the management, marketing, and production of all agricultural
products from “field to plate”.
The core curriculum is designed to provide students with an understanding of business functions in
application, theory, and practice. Two career emphases, Food Management or Animal/Equine Industry,
allow students to work closely with their advisor and design a curriculum for their specific career goals.
Internships place the student in their chosen field for up to one year to experience daily activities they
will be involved with. Students also have the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate marketing
competitions, promoting agricultural products.
Enterprising students are employed by the department in the operations of the W.K. Kellogg horse unit,
livestock and farming operations of the Kellogg Ranch, and the Farm Store at Kellogg Ranch, which
markets Cal Poly’s finest fruits and vegetables.
Private sector careers abound in all areas of Agribusiness and Food Industry Management. Many
graduates work for commodity boards and trade organizations that represent any product from almonds
to zucchini. This includes the California Milk Advisory Board and California’s Happy Cows. Many alums
work in sales, management and brokerage of commodities such as hay, grain, and feedstuffs, often
internationally. The large produce industry in Southern California demands graduates that are ready to
work and knowledgeable in all sectors of production, procurement, sales, and accounting. Other careers
include pharmaceutical sales, animal hospital management, animal rescue management, livestock, dairy,
and equine industry management, farm and ranch management, packinghouse management, and retail
operations of supermarkets and specialty stores. Alumni have pursued legal careers involving agriculture
as well as agricultural communications and journalism.
Public sector careers are currently in high demand due to an aging workforce in the next decade. It is
estimated that over 60% of the nation’s federal, state, and county agricultural workforce will retire
during this period. A multitude of opportunities are found within the seven mission areas and 27
agencies of the USDA. These include the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Foreign Agriculture
Service, National Resource Conservation Service, Forestry Service, Food Safety, Risk Management, and
Economic Research Service. Interesting careers within these agencies include smuggling and interdiction,
poisonous plant reconnaissance, habitat restoration, and crop, livestock, and commodity modeling.
Agencies within Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior also offer rewarding careers
protecting agricultural systems from terrorists, monitoring public lands with the Bureau of Land
Management, conserving resources with the National Park Service, and water related careers with the
Bureau of Reclamation.
1 Source: https://catalog.cpp.edu/preview_entity.php?catoid=4&ent_oid=1535&returnto=740
4 | P a g e
More locally, trained farm advisors consult and work with local farmers and ranchers to improve
practices and profitability. They are also involved with nutrition programs and 4‐H. County Agricultural
Commissioners have large staffs, which monitor pesticide applications, weights and measures, local
farmers markets, and commodity stabilization and standardization.
1.2. Mission and Goals
UNIVER
SITY
2
Mission ‐ We cultivate success through a diverse culture of experiential learning, discovery, and
innovation.
Vision ‐ Cal Poly Pomona will be the model for an inclusive polytechnic university that inspires
creativity and innovation, embraces local and global challenges, and transforms lives.
Values
Academic Excellence – We demonstrate academic quality, relevance, and excellence
through our teaching, learning, scholarship, and creative activities with student centered
faculty in an evidence‐based culture.
Experiential Learning – Our polytechnic identity fosters an integrative approach to
education through collaboration, discovery, learn‐by‐doing, and innovation. Our approach
encourages reflection, informed risk‐taking, and continuous learning.
Student Learning and Success – We are deeply committed to educational experiences and
supportive services that engage our students, enhance personal well‐being and growth,
provide career opportunities, and foster ethical citizenship.
Inclusive – Our diversity across multiple dimensions reflects and enhances our
community. We are welcoming and respectful, and we value diversity.
Community Engagement – We nurture mutually beneficial and meaningful relationships
with community partners and stakeholders.
Social and Environmental Responsibility – As global citizens, our individual and collective
actions reflect our commitment to one another, society, and the environment.
2 Source: https://www.cpp.edu/~aboutcpp/calpolypomona‐overview/mission‐and‐values.shtml
5 | P a g e
COLLEG
E OF
AGRICULTURE
3
Mission – The Huntley College of Agriculture educates and trains the next generation of leaders
in the farming, food and fashion industries. We offer our students hands‐on, STEM‐based
learning experiences, ranging from working with crops and animals on our 173‐acre‐farm, to
experimenting with food products in the lab, or designing and manufacturing a fashion line.
The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program utilizes experiences outside the
classroom to educate students in agribusiness. This corresponds with and supports the university’s
mission to engage students in experiential learning. The mission of the ABM program highlights the fact
that we provide graduates with essential skills for careers in agribusiness. This corresponds with and
supports the Huntley College of Agriculture’s mission to educate and train the next generation of leaders
in the farming, food, and fashion industries. There is alignment in the missions of the program, the
college, and the university. At the department level, we ‘incorporate real world experiences and hands
on learning.’ The college mission also mentions hands on learning experiences, while the university
mission includes experiential learning and learn‐by‐doing.
3 Source: http://www.cpp.edu/~agri/about/welcome‐from‐the‐dean.shtml
4 Source: http://www.cpp.edu/~agri/agribusiness/assessment/mission.shtml
Departm
ent of
Agribusiness & Food
Industry M
anagement 4 Mission – The ABM program seeks to effectively educate and prepare students within the
fields of Agribusiness, Food Industries, Marketing and Management for successful careers
within the Agricultural industry. The ABM program utilizes connections within the
agriculture industry to incorporate real world experiences and hands on learning in addition
to quality classroom instruction for a comprehensive education in Agribusiness. In addition
to cultivating beneficial relationships with potential employers, the ABM program is
dedicated to empowering graduates with the essential skills and education necessary for
professional careers in Agribusiness.
6 | P a g e
1.3. Reflection of Previous Self‐Study
Following are the major changes in the program that have occurred in the past five years. We did not
have a copy of the prior Program Review.
Personnel
We hired a new Assistant Professor, Dr. Steve Archambault, who started in fall 2016. One lecturer left,
but we have added several lecturers to teach ABM and AG courses. Dr. Jon C. Phillips, an ABM Professor,
applied for Chair of the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department.
He started in that position in January 2018.
Curriculum
Cal Poly Pomona converted from quarters to semesters in fall 2018. In the years preceding the
conversion, every program including ABM, re‐wrote all of their Expanded Course Outlines (ECOs). All
ECOs had to be receive approval at the college and the university levels. There was an extra level of
review for General Education (GE) courses. The ABM faculty significantly re‐vised the ABM curriculum.
Semester conversion was an intentional, time‐consuming task for ABM faculty. We will address this
curricular revision in detail in Sec. 2.2 below.
Advising
The ABM program changed who is advising students. Current advising assignments appear in Sec. 3.2.1
below. In brief, a staff advisor and tenure/tenure‐track faculty are advising students now.
Co‐curricular activities
We re‐established our National Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) campus chapter in 2014. We started
taking student to the annual NAMA competition as well as the Food Marketing Challenge competition at
the annual Food Distribution Research Society Conference.
7 | P a g e
Section 2. The Program Description
2.1. Units to Degree
To complete a B.S. in Agribusiness & Food Industry Management, a total of 120 semester units or 180
quarter units are needed,
We will be converting to semesters starting in fall, 2018. Students who started before fall, 2018 will have
a choice of graduating under the quarter requirements or the semester requirements. In the new
(semester) system, students must complete 63 semester units of core courses, 48 semester units of GE
with 9 semester units double counted, and 18 semester units of directed electives. A total of 120
semester units are needed.
Under the previous (quarter) system, all students must complete 68 quarter units of general education,
where 12 units are double counted for the major. Each student must complete an additional 112
quarter units for the major.
2.2. Curriculum
2.2.1. List of Curriculum5
Table 1 provides a list of the quarter curriculum (core, directed electives, emphasis areas, minors, etc.).
Table 1 – Curriculum
Course # Course Name Units
Required Core (56‐57 units)
ABM 201 Managing Agribusiness Organizations 3
ABM 224 Accounting for Agribusiness 4
ABM 304 Food and Agribusiness Marketing 4
ABM 306 Wholesaling and Retailing of Food Products 4
ABM 309 Sales and Advertising Management 4
ABM 311 Applied Economics for Agribusiness 4
ABM 313 Politics of Food and Agriculture 3
ABM 326 Financial Analysis for Agribusiness I 4
ABM 375 Data Management for Agribusiness 4
ABM 402 Agribusiness Personnel Management 4
ABM 490 Senior Feasibility Study 3
AG 100 Orientation to the College of Agriculture 1
AG 101 Agriculture and the Modern World 4
AG 464 Development of Leadership Skills 3
CIS 101 or AG 128/128L Introduction to Personal Computing | Computer Applications in Agriculture 4 |
2/1
IA 101 Global Resources for Food 4
Required Support Courses (16 units)
AG 401 Ethical Issues in Food, Agricultural, and Apparel Industries 4
EC 201 Principles of Economics 4
FRL 201 or FST 322 Legal Environment of Business Transactions | Food Laws and Regulations 4 | 4
STA 120 Statistics with Applications 4
5 https://www.cpp.edu/~academic‐programs/academic‐advising/tools/sheets‐roadmaps/index.shtml
8 | P a g e
Course # Course Name Units
Elective Support Courses (44 units)
Minimum of 32 units from either emphasis, other 12 units approved by Advisor
Food Industry Management Career Emphasis
ABM 310 Seminar in Food and Agribusiness Management 3
ABM 327 Financial Analysis for Agribusiness II 3
ABM 328 Agribusiness Enterprise Management 4
ABM 330 International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 4
ABM 405 Food and Agricultural Marketing Applications 4
ABM 441 Internship in Food Marketing and Agribusiness 1‐4
AVS 327/327L Meat Science and Industry 3/1
FST 125 Introduction to Food Science and Technology 4
FST 325 Food Safety and Current Issues 4
FST 430/430A Principles of HACCP 3/1
IBM 301 Principles of Marketing Management 4
MHR 320 Introduction to Entrepreneurship 4
MHR 321 Creativity and Entrepreneurship 4
PLT 203/203L Pomology 3/1
PLT 222 Culinary Produce Technology 4
PLT 226/226L Vegetable Crop Systems 3/1
PLT 232 Irrigation and Water Management 4
PLT 321/321L Crop Quality and Utilization 3/1
PLT 334/334L Soil Resource Management and Conservation 3/1
PLT 351/PLT 351L Postharvest Physiology 3/1
PLT 437/437L Environmental Sustainable Agriculture 3/1
Animal Industry or Equine Industry Career Emphasis
ABM 329 Equine Enterprise Management 3
ABM 430 Equine Appraisal and Evaluation 3
ABM 441 Internship in Food Marketing and Agribusiness 1‐4
ABM 450 Agricultural Water Resource Management 4
AHS 302/302L Animal Parasitology 3/1
AHS 450 Veterinary Economics and Hospital Management 3
AVS 101 Fundamentals of Animal Nutrition 4
AVS 112 Animal Science 1: Food Animal Science 4
AVS 113 Animal Science II: Companion, Lab, and Exotic Animal Science 4
AVS 114L Animal Science I: Food Animal Management Laboratory 1
AVS 115L Companion, Lab, and Exotic Animal Science Lab 1
AVS 125/125L Equine Management Science 3/1
AVS 201 Animal Diseases 3
AVS 305 Genetics of Domestic Animals 4
AVS 327/327L Meat Science and Industry 3/1
AVS 328/328A Seafood and Poultry Processing Technology 3/1
AVS 350/350L Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals 4/1
AVS 355 Equine Nutrition 3
AVS 365/365L Equine Herd Health Care and Management 3/1
AVS 414/414L Physiology of Reproduction and Lactation 3/1
PLT 223/223L Pastures and Forage Systems 3/1
PLT 231/231L Basic Soil Science 3/1
PLT 232 Irrigation and Water Management 4
PLT 334/334L Soil Resource Management and Conservation 3/1
9 | P a g e
Course # Course Name Units
Unrestricted Electives (0‐8 units)
Sufficient number of courses so that the total from “Required Core”, “Required Support”, “GE”, and “Unrestricted Electives”
is at least 136 units
Cal Poly Pomona has gone through semester conversion during the period of review. Specifically, we
converted from a quarter curriculum to a semester curriculum. Under quarters, we had three 10‐week
quarters per academic year. Starting in fall, 2018, we have two 15‐week semesters. Semester conversion
was a major undertaking. In general, we converted 4‐unit quarter courses to 3‐unit semester courses.
This required adding ~12% more content to each class. We were required to develop and submit
Expanded Course Outlines for all of our semester classes. Because of the extensive effort involved in
semester conversion, we generally avoided curriculum changes in the years running up to fall, 2017. The
implication was that the curriculum remained relatively constant during the period of review.
Going forward, however, we anticipate changing our debut semester curriculum. As we implement the
curriculum and advise students, we will detect potential bottlenecks, etc., that hinder students’ progress
through the program and delay graduation. Going forward, we will make changes to the curriculum to
streamline the program as well as in response to assessment results.
Changes made during the re‐visioning process from quarters to semesters
We made some changes as we converted the ABM curriculum from quarters to semesters. We added
two classes to the major required core. One new class was ABM 3100, Sales and Professional
Development for Agribusiness. The other was ABM 2260, Accounting for Agribusiness II. We added these
classes to strengthen students’ preparation in marketing and accounting, respectively. We also added
ABM 4130, Agricultural Law and Compliance, as a substitute for two possible related courses (i.e., FRL
201, Legal Environment of Business Transactions or FST 322, Food Laws and Regulations). We wanted to
offer our own law‐related course to assure its relevancy to our program.
By adding classes, we reduced the scope for elective support courses. Under quarters, students took 44
units (almost one year’s worth) of elective support courses. Only 18 units (60% of a year) of career track
electives are required. Three‐unit semester classes have 12% more contact time than four‐unit quarter
classes, as mentioned above. This effectively contributed further to the reduction in the requirement for
elective support courses.
Note that the anticipated evolution of the curriculum appears in section 2.2.5, Curricular Changes,
below.
2.2.2. Service Learning and Honors Courses
Table 2 provides a list of service learning and/or honor courses that the department offers.
Table 2 – List of Honors and Service Learning Courses6
Course Course Title
AG 101H Agriculture and the Modern World Honors
AG 400H Special Study for Upper Division Students Honors
6 ARAR “Course Listing” Report
10 | P a g e
AG 401H Ethical Issues in Food, Agricultural, and Apparel Industries
*Please remove any classes that do not relate to your program
We offered one section each of AG 101H, AG 400H, and AG 401H during the period of review. These
courses served 10 students (AG 101H), 1 student (AG 400H), and 2 students (AG 401H). These courses
are not offered on a regular basis. If these classes were offered, however, they would play a role in
helping ABM students complete their course requirements for the Kellogg Honors College.
2.2.3. General Education and Service Courses
Table 3 provides a list of General Education Courses that are taught within the department.
Table 3 – General Education Courses
Semester Course Quarter Equivalent Course Course Title
AG 1010: 3 units
AG 101: 4 units Agriculture in the Modern World
AG 2010: 3 units
IA 101: 4 units Global Resources for Food
AG 4010: 3 units AG 401: 4 units Ethical Issues in Food, Agricultural,
and Apparel Industries
These three GE classes are part of the required core of the ABM major. They double‐count, i.e., as part
of the major as well as toward GE. These courses provide a background in agriculture for the ABM
students. They take a social science perspective on agriculture and the food system. As GE classes, they
provide substantial development in four core competencies, i.e., written communication, oral
communication, critical thinking, and information literacy. These classes, especially AG 1010 and AG
4010, are in substantial demand and fill ~10 sections of 50 students each semester. Their role for the
degree program is to educate ABM students regarding general agricultural concepts and issues. They
also generate a substantial amount of FTE‐Students for the program and provide plenty of opportunities
for our instructors to teach, both during the AY and in the summer.
In addition, teaching GE courses helps students from other colleges within Cal Poly Pomona better
understand agriculture. This serves as a way to recruit students, who either have not declared a major or
are motivated to change majors.
In semesters/quarters the following service courses are taught by the department for the Huntley
College of Agriculture:
AG 1010: Agriculture in the Modern World, 3 units
AG 4010: Ethical Issues in Food, Agricultural, and Apparel Industries, 3 units
11 | P a g e
[Note: Under quarters, AG 100: Orientation to the College of Agriculture, 1 unit, was a service course for
new freshmen of all B.S. programs in the Huntley College of Agriculture. The college leadership during
semester conversion decided that each program would develop its own first year experience (FYE)
course. Going forward, students in each program will take an FYE course specific to their own, individual
program, e.g., PLT 1000, AHS 1000, and AGS 1000. The implication is that the department will no longer
be offering an FYE service course.]
The program also provides the following service courses for the Agricultural Science B.S. program:
ABM 2010: Agribusiness Organizations and Careers, 3 units
ABM 2240: Accounting for Agribusiness, 3 units
ABM 3130: Food and Agricultural Policy, 3 units
ABM 3290: Equine Enterprise Management, 3 units
ABM 3300: International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 3 units
ABM 4050: Food and Agricultural Marketing Applications, 3 units
ABM 4130: Agricultural Law and Compliance, 3 units
ABM 4300: Equine Appraisal and Evaluation, 3 units
ABM 4500: Agricultural Water Resource Management, 3 units
AG 2010: Global Resources for Food, 3 units
The following courses from the list above are part of the major required core of the ABM B.S. program:
ABM 2010, ABM 2240, ABM 3130, and ABM 4130. The following courses from the list above are
electives for the ABM B.S. program: ABM 3290, ABM 3300, ABM 4050, ABM 4300, and ABM 4500.
ABM 2240 is a required course for the Nutrition, Dietetics Option B.S. program and the Plant Science B.S.
program. ABM 2240 or a class from the Accounting Department is required by the Apparel
Merchandising and Management B.S. program.
2.2.4 Curriculum Comparison
The two comparison degree programs are the B.S. in Agricultural Business from C.S.U. Chico and the B.S.
in Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business from New Mexico State University. The curricula for
these two comparison degrees are included in Appendix A.
The following table shows the curriculum of the B.S. in Agribusiness & Food Industry Management at Cal
Poly Pomona, Chico State, and New Mexico State with the units in categories. The three specialty areas
offered at New Mexico State are Natural Resources, Finance, and Marketing.
12 | P a g e
Table 4 – Cal Poly Pomona, Chico State, and New Mexico State Degree Units Breakdown
Cal Poly
Pomona
CSU
Chico
New Mexico
State –
Specialty in
Natural
Resources
New Mexico
State –
Specialty in
Finance
New Mexico
State –
Specialty in
Marketing
Areas Units Units Units Units Units
Policy/Law 6 6 6 3 3
Management 9 9 13 13 13
Economics 6 6 15 12 12
Marketing 12 3 3 3 9
Accounting/Finance 9 9 13 19 13
Computers/Quantitative 9 9 15 15 15
Leadership 3 0 0 0 0
First Year Experience 0 1 2 2 2
Policy 0 0 3 3 3
Science 0 7 0 0 0
Internship 0 3 0 0 0
General Agriculture 9 30 0 0 0
Subtotal 63 83 70 70 70
General Education (GE) 48 48 42 42 42
‐ Double Counted (GE) ‐9 ‐11 0 0 0
Electives 18 0 8 8 8
Grand Total 120 120 120 120 120
One notable difference between the CPP B.S. in Agribusiness and Food Industry Management and the
CSU‐Chico degree, however, is that there are additional categories of classes in the CSU‐Chico degree.
Specifically, the extra categories for CSU‐Chico are First Year Experience, Science, and Internship. A
second notable difference is the much larger requirement for General Agriculture courses for CSU‐Chico,
compared to the CPP B.S. in Agribusiness and Food Industry Management degree program. A reason for
this difference is that the College of Agriculture at CSU‐Chico is smaller and more integrated than the
Huntley College of Agriculture. It would make sense for such a college to require more classes from
other agricultural specialties in its Agricultural Business program.
The comparable degree from New Mexico State lacks the Science and Internship categories that are part
of the CSU‐Chico degree. In that respect, it is similar to the B.S. in Agribusiness & Food Industry
Management at Cal Poly Pomona. Like the CSU‐Chico degree, the comparable degree from New Mexico
State requires units from the First Year Experience category. Another noteworthy difference relates to
the Economics category. The New Mexico State degree requires either 12 or 15 units in Economics. The
Cal Poly Pomona degree and the CSU‐Chico degree, in contrast, only require 6 units in Economics. The
New Mexico State degree also requires more units in the Computers/Quantitative category. Specifically,
the New Mexico State degree requires 15 units compared to just 9 units for the other two degrees. A
reason for these two differences is that the New Mexico State degree is in Agricultural Economics and
13 | P a g e
Agricultural Business. The agricultural economics part of the degree would lead to more required classes
in Economics as well as in the Computers/Quantitative category.
Though CPP degree is different it provides students with the needed technical and non‐technical skills to be assets to the AG industry. The meaning of the degree in Agribusiness Management from Cal Poly Pomona involves preparation for a career in the management of agricultural business, agricultural finance or in the government or policy area. Two career emphasis areas in either Food Industry Management or Animal Industry Management provide the students with very different career directions. Students in this curriculum are highly supported and mentored by alumni and also the agricultural industry. We are preparing our students for a variety of careers in the agriculture industry, and include working for commodity boards and trade organizations, import and export organizations, large produce companies in southern California, packinghouse management, and pharmaceutical sales. The companion animal industry has seen a large increase in sales and business overall in the last several years, and many of our graduates are finding excellent positions in that industry. Many of the students also find careers in government regulatory organizations. Recently we have added the Urban and Community Agriculture area of interest to this program, and will be adding faculty in the near future to train students in topics pertinent to Urban Agriculture in the southern California area. Our intention is to provide students who have both the hard and soft skill sets to excel in the agricultural business world, and to be the southern California agricultural business university that supports the industries in our area.
2.2.5 Curricular Changes
Table 5a indicating number of sections and students in required and elective courses over the past five
years.
Table 5a – Course Offerings7
Course F12
W13
Sp13
F13
W14
Sp14
F14
W15
Sp15
F15
W16
Sp16
F16
W17
Sp17
Total
ABM200
#ofOffers
1 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 3 0 1 30
#ofStudents
1 1 2 6 7 6 1 1 5 1 9 5 3 0 2 50
ABM201
#ofOffers
1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 10
#ofStudents
23 24 0 24 26 0 29 29 0 29 20 0 34 24 0 262
ABM224
#ofOffers
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 3 39
#ofStudents
53 61 58 81 56 56 87 63 55 109
62 55 115
112
77 1100
ABM299
#ofOffers
2 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 12
#ofStudents
17 23 19 9 0 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 0 17 0 107
7 ARAR “Course Listing” Report
14 | P a g e
ABM299A
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
ABM304
#ofOffers
1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 9
#ofStudents
43 0 0 46 0 0 39 0 0 34 31 0 30 27 0 250
ABM306
#ofOffers
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
#ofStudents
39 0 0 36 0 0 38 0 0 41 0 0 46 0 0 200
ABM309
#ofOffers
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 9
#ofStudents
0 48 0 0 38 0 0 36 0 0 29 32 0 22 27 232
ABM310
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
ABM311
#ofOffers
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 10
#ofStudents
32 0 23 23 0 25 17 0 29 21 0 29 12 0 26 237
ABM313
#ofOffers
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 8
#ofStudents
0 0 48 0 0 32 0 18 31 0 18 34 0 24 19 224
ABM326
#ofOffers
0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 8
#ofStudents
0 45 0 0 38 15 0 24 24 0 23 0 0 25 28 222
ABM330
#ofOffers
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
#ofStudents
0 27 0 0 28 0 0 31 0 0 28 0 0 29 0 143
ABM375
#ofOffers
0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 12
#ofStudents
0 0 32 0 32 28 0 29 31 0 29 54 29 30 48 342
ABM400
#ofOffers
2 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 6 3 1 5 3 2 1 48
#ofStudents
9 7 5 16 13 16 3 9 16 3 4 14 10 4 3 132
ABM402
#ofOffers
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 6
#ofStudents
0 0 30 0 0 37 0 0 40 0 0 42 0 0 62 211
ABM405
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 15 0 12 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 41
ABM441
#ofOffers
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 17
#ofStudents
14 10 11 17 9 7 6 7 7 8 4 4 3 1 3 111
ABM442
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
ABM450
#ofOffers
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5
#ofStudents
0 0 18 0 0 22 0 0 40 0 0 16 0 0 43 139
ABM490
#ofOffers
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
15 | P a g e
#ofStudents
0 0 27 0 0 36 0 0 37 0 0 29 0 0 0 129
ABM499
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 36 56
AG100
#ofOffers
9 1 0 9 2 0 10 1 1 9 1 0 10 4 0 57
#ofStudents
250
25 0 262
34 0 260
28 7 222
18 0 278
98 0 1482
AG101
#ofOffers
5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 7 8 10 90
#ofStudents
291
282
222
329
259
271
307
259
301
258
289
282
350
410
473
4583
AG101H
#ofOffers
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
#ofStudents
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
AG128
#ofOffers
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
#ofStudents
0 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 23 0 0 65
AG128L
#ofOffers
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
#ofStudents
0 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 21 0 0 23 0 0 65
AG200
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 2 9
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26 25 8 18 85
AG299
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 9 6 0 41 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 74
AG398
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
AG400
#ofOffers
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 8
#ofStudents
0 0 14 0 0 19 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 4 42
AG400H
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
AG401
#ofOffers
6 7 5 7 6 7 8 7 8 8 6 8 9 10 10 112
#ofStudents
301
350
250
348
308
353
406
368
399
406
299
373
455
491
497
5604
AG401H
#ofOffers
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
#ofStudents
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
AG464
#ofOffers
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 6
#ofStudents
0 48 0 0 38 0 0 41 0 0 55 0 0 53 0 235
AG499
#ofOffers
1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 15
#ofStudents
12 0 0 13 18 12 14 0 19 17 1 16 9 0 18 149
AG499A
#ofOffers
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
16 | P a g e
#ofStudents
12 0 0 13 0 0 11 0 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 59
AG500
#ofOffers
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
#ofStudents
12 0 0 11 0 0 13 0 0 9 0 0 26 0 0 71
AG530
#ofOffers
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5
#ofStudents
6 0 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 27 59
AG697
#ofOffers
1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
#ofStudents
1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Overall
Totals
#ofOffers
37 31 30 46 33 35 45 35 41 44 30 41 51 44 44 587
#ofStudents
1116
963
761
1264
930
952
1274
1001
1076
1223
941
1032
1483
1380
1411
16807
17 | P a g e
First, note that the bottom two rows of Table 5a – Course Offerings indicates a consistent growth in the number of sections offered and the number of students taught. We will cover that in some detail in Sec. 5.1 Enrollment. The instructions for Sec. 2.2.1 asked the department to ‘reflect on curricular changes (or no changes) made over the past 5 years and explain why changes (or no changes) were made to the curriculum.’ In our response to the instructions for Sec. 2.2.1, we stated “Cal Poly Pomona has gone through semester conversion during the period of review. Specifically, we converted from a quarter curriculum to a semester curriculum. Under quarters, we had three 10‐week quarters per academic year. Starting in fall, 2017, we have two 15‐week semesters. Semester conversion was a major undertaking. In general, we converted 4‐unit quarter courses to 3‐unit semester courses. This required adding ~12% more content to each class. We were required to develop and submit Expanded Course Outlines for all of our semester classes. Because of the extensive effort involved in semester conversion, we generally avoided curriculum changes in the years running up to fall, 2017. The implication was that the curriculum remained relatively constant during the period of review.” The main thing reflected in Table 5a is the growth of the program. ABM 304, Food and Agribusiness Marketing, is a good example of growth. In 2012, we taught 43 students and in 2013 we taught 46 students. By AY 2015 – 16, however, we modified our offerings and expanded ABM 304 to be taught in two quarters (instead of one quarter) per year. In ’15 – ’16 and ’16 – ’17, we taught 65 and 57 students, respectively, combining the students in both sections of ABM 304 per AY. Anticipated evolution of the curriculum We put in a number of requests to change the ABM program’s curriculum during the 2018 – 19 curriculum cycle. 1. Remove ABM 2260, Accounting for Agribusiness II, from the required core. Reason: Under quarters, ABM students were required to take 10 weeks of accounting. Our debut semester curriculum has two 15‐week accounting courses in the required core, namely ABM 2240 and ABM 2260. Anecdotally, students who started under quarters have expressed a desire to remain under quarters in order to avoid the second accounting class. It seems like this increase is too much to ask of our students. Further, the lecturer who championed requiring the additional accounting class got another job and no longer teaches for the ABM program. We can offer ABM 2260 as an elective course for students who want to take extra accounting from the ABM faculty. 2. Remove ABM 4130, Agricultural Law and Compliance, from the required core. Replace with FRL 2013, The Legal Environment of Business and Its Transactions or FST 3220, Food Laws and Regulations. Reason: We had difficulty staffing this class in AY 2017 – 2018. Giving students two courses to choose from provides the opportunity to specialize (or not) as well as more flexibility for students’ schedules. 3. Current requirement: AG 1280, Computer Applications for Agriculture. Add: Or CIS 1010, Introduction to Personal Computing. Reason: Giving students two courses to choose from provides more flexibility for students’ schedules. 4. Add AGS 1000, Orientation to Agricultural Science.
18 | P a g e
Reason: First year experience (FYE) courses have tremendous benefits for beginning college students. For this reason, Cal Poly Pomona has mandated that all programs have an FYE course. Under quarters, all programs in the Huntley College of Agriculture required beginning college students to take AG 100, Orientation to the College of Agriculture. AG 100 was discontinued for semesters. Each program was supposed to replace AG 100 with their own, specialized FYE course. We originally had planned to have ABM 2010, Agribusiness Organizations and Careers be the FYE class for the ABM program. Upon review of the Expanded Course Outline of ABM 2010, the college determined that it did not meet the requirements for a FYE course. We will therefore add AGS 1000, Orientation to Agricultural Science to the ABM required core. The removal of ABM 2260 (3 units) and the addition of AGS 1000 (1 unit) will cause a net reduction of 2 units in the required core. Instead of the current 63 units, the required core for AY 2019 – 2020 will be 61 units. The corresponding change in career track electives will be an increase of 2 units, from 18 to 20 units. The debut ABM semester curriculum has a critical sequence of required marketing courses. Specifically, the following four marketing courses are required: • ABM 3040, Food and Agribusiness Marketing • ABM 3060, Retailing and Wholesaling of Agribusiness Products • ABM 3090, Promotion and Advertising for Agribusiness • ABM 3100, Sales and Professional Development for Agribusiness. Lower numbered courses are prerequisites for the higher numbered courses. Therefore, it takes four semesters for students to get through the sequence. Further, ABM 3040 has a prerequisite, namely, EC 2201, Principles of Microeconomics. In general, ABM required core courses are not offered in the summer. For a transfer student who enters the ABM program without EC 2201 (or equivalent), there will be no way to get through this sequence in two years. To make matters worse, starting in fall, 2017, EC 2201 has a prerequisite. (The prerequisites for EC 2201 are “C or better in MAT 12, ESM 12, MAT 1050, MAT 105, STA 1200, STA 120, MAT 1250, MAT 125, MAT 1140, MAT 114, ALEKS score >45, MDTP score >23, or SAT Math>=570, or ACT>=23.”) We anticipate that this curricular issue will lengthen students’ (especially transfer students) time to degree. We plan to address this issue in the 2019 – 20 curriculum cycle. The goal will be to enable students to make it through the courses more quickly, while striving to maintain the rigor of the program. The external needs and demands for the program emerge from the agribusiness industry that is in turn driven by several factors, including consumer demands, government oversight, international relations, global consolidation, corporate priorities, climate change, changes in resource availability, and technological advances. The agricultural business model in the U.S. is evolving for a variety of reasons. This necessitates new thinking and paradigms for everyone from new employees to corporate executives in order to face ongoing challenges and the new ones that are emerging. Graduates may face challenges and be given opportunities due to the following business trends. Consumer Demands. In developed and developing markets, consumers are more educated than ever before. In light of this, there has been a trend towards better labeling, safer handling, and more nutritious food choices. In addition, higher end consumers in these markets are actively seeking more costly products that are
19 | P a g e
locally grown, organically certified, and/or ethically sourced. Also, in emerging economies, populations with more expendable income are trending away from starch products to a more protein‐based diet. Government Oversight. In more developed economies, there are distinct health trends emerging that are of major concern. Governments are focusing resources and massive funding into promoting healthier options, especially for younger consumers. At the same time, they are instituting more regulation and tighter controls when it relates to food safety, nutrition, and even sourcing. International Relations. Trade agreements and improved logistics have given the consumer more options and, in some markets, they can obtain “seasonal” items year‐round. It has also made common items less expensive and exotic items affordable. However, the current political climate has also created significant challenges that may have stalled or even halted such beneficial trends. Global Consolidation. Corporate consolidation has been a trend for many decades and continues to influence agribusiness. There are many factors why this is a popular trend in agribusiness. As profit margins slim, due to increased competition, corporations need to cut costs. Agribusiness is a popular acquisition for unrelated businesses because it is considered a stable source of income. Also, the industry has a solid growth outlook due to expanding populations and to the increasing wealth in emerging economies. Corporate Priorities. The fundamental and most important corporate priority is profit. However, there are others that are trending because of activism, public relations, altruism and intelligent planning. They include, tapping smaller consumer pools that have higher margins and or create customer loyalty, using sustainable sourcing, fair trade practices and material avoidance. Climate Change. This is a very real and serious challenge to the future of agribusiness. There will be costly short‐term impacts due to droughts, wildfires and more ever‐increasing hurricanes. If not halted there are potentially game changing impacts due to melting ice, warming oceans and rising tides. Also, milder climates may open new production areas to certain commodities. The geographic range of certain pests and diseases may expand as well. Changes in Resource Availability. Agribusiness in some of the more developed areas are facing challenges due to changes in resource availability. Water is becoming scarce and expensive in one region and elsewhere it is overabundant and causing damage. Overall, clean fresh water is a diminishing resource that will require the need for innovative and creative solutions that use it more effectively. Certain materials are not being produced using sustainable methods. This has led to shortages and the need to find other materials to fit the need. There are many more resources being depleted at alarming rates that will have dire impacts if not addressed soon. Technological Advances. This is an ever‐growing area in general but has even more exciting prospects for agribusiness. Technology will help resolve or mitigate some of the challenges above and will also help agribusiness be more profitable and assist in meeting the ever‐increasing demands of the consumers. It will help
20 | P a g e
facilitate better crop and animal yields, improve resource management, create new offerings, improve transportation efficiency, reduce waste, and automate and optimize production. All of the above trends and challenges will provide excellent opportunity for our graduates. There is tremendous potential for individuals who have the training and skills necessary to take on these tasks. A May 2015 joint report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Purdue University estimates there will be about 60,000 new agriculture job openings per year over the next five years. During that same period, the report estimates there will only be about 35,000 college graduates each year to fill those slots. Tom Nurre, 2015. “Agriculture Degrees Follow Industry Trends”. Angelo State University. www.angelo.edu/news To address the evolving needs of the industry, the department has embraced a variety of new ideas
incorporating state‐of‐the‐art technical advances and traditional paths. The direction is multifaceted
using:
Social media and a learning management system, such as YouTube and Blackboard
Creative visual offerings that the students can relate to, such as presenting a project in “Shark
Tank“ style using the media for filming
Hands on experience and industry exposure, such as a 70 person Agribusiness dinner which
connected 45 ABM students with industry professionals
New software, such as Wileyplus to enhance and improve the web experience for students
Established websites, such as www.mdpi.com to obtain new and creative ideas on ethical issues
in agriculture
Government websites, such as USDA and The California Department of Agriculture to keep
students up to date on the most current issues in the industry
Faculty development by having them attend seminars, such as “Engaging the Digital Learner”
and/or joining emerging industry networks, such as “NEW,” a network for executive women.
21 | P a g e
Table 5b and Table 5c provides data on courses within the major with high non‐passing rates and high impact factors. Non‐passing rate is a percentage of students not passing the course, while impact factor takes into account both the enrollment and non‐passing rates. Thus, courses with high enrollment result in higher impact factor because a significant number of students are impacted.
Table 5b ‐ High – DFW’s by Non‐Pass Rate8
Non‐Passing
Year
Term
Course
Code Enrollment
Non‐
passing
Rate Impact Course Title
2017 IA 101* 38 21% 8 Global Resources for Food
2012 AGS 462 14 21% 3 Senior Project
2012 ABM 450 18 17% 3 Agriculture Water Resource Management
2016 AG 200 51 16% 8 Special Study Lower Division Students
2013 ABM 224 192 11% 21 Accounting for Agribusiness
2017 ABM 201 28 11% 3 Managing Agribusiness Organization
2016 AG 401* 1441 10% 150 Ethical Issues ‐ Food, Ag and App Industries
2012 AG 101* 793 10% 77 Agriculture and The Modern World
2012 AG 100 275 10% 27 Orientation to Agriculture
2013 ABM 311 48 10% 5 Applied Econ for Agribusiness
*GE Courses
8 CSU Dashboard “In Which Courses Do They Struggle” Report https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐low‐
success‐high‐enrollment
22 | P a g e
Table 5c‐ High – DFW’s by Impact Factor9
Impact Factor
Year
Term
Course
Code Enrollment
Non‐
passing
Rate Impact Course Title
2016 AG401 1441 10% 150 Ethical Issues ‐ Food, Ag and App Industries
2016 AG101 1229 9% 105 Agriculture and The Modern World
2012 AG100 275 10% 27 Orientation to Agriculture
*GE Courses
Overall IA 101. AGS 462 and ABM 450 are defined as courses with low pass rates. However, AG 401, AG
101 and AG 100 have shown to have a high impact factor.
We now address Table 5b and Table 5c, courses with high non‐passing rates and courses with high impact factors. First, all courses were redesigned to convert them to semesters. We created new expanded course outlines (ECOs) for all courses. This allowed us to consider carefully the learning objectives, the assignments, the exams, the timing and sequencing of course elements, etc. We hope and expect that this redesign will result in a lower DFW rate for all of our courses; particularly after faculty have a few opportunities to teach and refine their courses. This will reduce both the non‐passing rates (i.e., Table 5b) as well as the impact factors (i.e., Table 5c). Overall, IA 101, AGS 462, and ABM 450 are defined as courses with low pass rates. However, AG 401, AG 101, and AG 100 have shown to have a high impact factor. Table 5b lists high DFW courses by non‐pass rate. The top class on the list is IA 101 (2017) with a non‐passing rate of 21%. The department chair has been working with the instructor of the course to reduce the DFW rate. They met in fall, 2018. The department chair will continue to monitor progress and take additional action as necessary. The next course on the list is AGS 462 from 2012. It has second highest DFW rate at 21%. This is an Agricultural Science course, however. It is offered by the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department, but it is not part of the ABM program. Specifically, it is not part of the ABM required core and ABM students do not commonly take it as an elective. This course, therefore, is not relevant to the 5‐year program review for ABM. The third highest non‐passing rate in Table 5b is ABM 450. Its non‐passing rate was 17% in 2012. Dr. Archambault taught ABM 450 in 2016. He adopted a new approach with the course. The course did not have a DFW rate sufficiently high to place it on Table 5b, the list of high‐DFWs by non‐pass rate. After 2012, ABM 450 did not qualify as a top‐ten DFW course for the period of review. It appears like the problem of the high non‐passing rate in ABM 450 has been solved.
9 CSU Dashboard “In Which Courses Do They Struggle” Report https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐low‐
success‐high‐enrollment
23 | P a g e
All of the rest of the courses listed in Table 5b have non‐passing rates of less than 17%. Table 5c lists high DFW courses by impact factor. The courses with the highest impact factors are those where the largest number of students received a D, an F, or a W, i.e., the courses that affected the highest number of students with a DFW. The course with the highest impact factor from Table 5c is AG 401. In 2016, it had a DFW impact on 150 students with a non‐passing rate of 10%. We took a number of actions to reduce the number of students receiving a DFW in AG 401. Records showed that one instructor had a particularly high DFW rate (40%) when teaching online. This instructor had a much lower DFW rate when teaching face‐to‐face. This instructor will be teaching this class face‐to‐face in the future. The Huntley College of Agriculture offered a workshop on ‘Flipping the Classroom’ in November 2018. The workshop took place on two days, three hours per session. The Director of the Faculty Center for Professional Development designed and led the workshop. The purpose was to assist faculty to implement flipped classes. Five instructors of AG 4010 attended the workshop, along with faculty members from other departments. Four of the five AG 4010 instructors were new instructors, who will be teaching hybrid sections. Hybrid courses are well suited to the flipped classroom method of instruction. The instructors who attended the workshop who are teaching hybrid sections are implementing the flipping techniques in spring 2019. In AY 2017 – 18, the Office of the Dean of the Huntley College of Agriculture provided $1,920 to the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department. The purpose was to reduce the DFW rate in AG 401. We hired a tutor to assist students who took AG 401 in AY 2017 – 18. This tutor provided tutoring services to AG 401 students at accessible times and in an accessible place. The tutor also worked with AG 401 instructors on creating study guides and other material to assist students in achieving the applicable student learning outcomes. We also noticed that online courses have a higher DFW rate than hybrid or face‐to‐face courses. We are moving in the direction of offering hybrid sections of our GE courses. (AG 401 and AG 101 are GE courses.) This has been challenging. Online courses are more convenient for students and for instructors. In fact, we have some instructors who live some distance from campus and can only teach online. Online courses are also more convenient for the university. With online courses, there is no need to provide physical facilities. Online courses, therefore, save on utilities, parking, etc. The tradeoff is convenience for everybody versus student success, as reflected in the higher DFW rates/numbers for online classes. We implemented another innovation for AG 1010 in fall, 2018, with a goal of improving the DFW numbers. (AG 101 in 2016 was the class with the second highest DFW impact, according to Table 6). One of our remote instructors taught two sections with 75 students in each. We hired a graduate student to assist this instructor. One of the duties of the graduate student was to hold office hours in the department office. The purpose was to provide opportunities for the 150 students in these sections of AG 1010 to speak with someone from the class face‐to‐face. They could ask for assistance with key concepts of the course, clarification on assignments, study guides for exams, or any other support that was necessary. We are pleased and grateful for the support we received from the ‘very large sections’ program, which allowed us to employ this student. The class from Table 5c with the third‐highest impact was AG 100. As mentioned above, AG 100 was a first‐year experience (FYE) course required of all freshmen in the College of Agriculture. Also mentioned
24 | P a g e
above was the fact that, with semester conversion, we did away with AG 100. It was replaced by customized FYE courses for each individual program. The new FYE course for ABM will be AGS 1000. We expect that this customized FYE course will keep ABM students interested and engaged. We also expect this to result in a low non‐passing rate and minimal students affected by DFW for AGS 1000. We are constantly looking for ways to lower the non‐passing rate and the number of students impacted by DFW. We are eager to implement any promising innovations to achieve this end, while maintaining the rigor of our courses. Another situation that may influence a bottleneck for students is that we offer four computer‐intensive courses, namely, ABM 2240, ABM 2260, ABM 3260, and ABM 3750. The instructors of these classes prefer to use the computer lab in Bldg. 2, Agriculture. This lab is highly used by all departments in the Huntley College of Agriculture and finding times for all students and classes is challenging. To alleviate this problem, the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department purchased a computer cart with 30 PCs. Not having instructors for specific classes can create a bottleneck. Currently, we do not have an instructor to teach ABM 4130 Agricultural Law and Compliance or ABM 4500 Agricultural Water Resource Management. (ABM 4130 is a required core course for the ABM program in 2017 – 18. ABM 4500 is an elective course for ABM but a service course for the Agricultural Science program.) We are trying to recruit temporary faculty to teach ABM 4130 and ABM 4500. We even placed ads on the department website and in local media. We have not found a qualified applicant yet, however. Another way to solve this problem would be to hire more tenure‐track faculty.
25 | P a g e
Section 3. Program Assessment
3.1. Accreditation Status or Other External Assessments
To the best of our knowledge, there is no accreditation for agribusiness academic programs. This
section does not apply.
3.2. Assessment Plan
The following tables provide a detailed assessment plan for the program.
Table 6a – Alignment Matrix
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
PLO1: Graduates will be prepared for
professional careers in the food and
agribusiness industry as employees,
managers, leaders, and entrepreneurs (SLO,
SLO2, SLO6, SLO8).
SLO1: Graduates will be able to describe
marketing's strategic role in an agribusiness
organization and design a marketing plan for
an agribusiness product.
PLO2: Graduates will be able to write and
design an agribusiness marketing plan,
advertising campaign, feasibility study, policy
book, and business plan (SLO1, SLO2, SLO3).
SLO2: Graduates will be able to collect,
manage, and analyze information of
communities, individual firms or industries,
and present findings.
PLO3: Graduates will have qualitative and
quantitative analytical skills for the business
management, marketing, finance, and
accounting (SLO4, SLO5).
SLO3: Graduates will be able locate, interpret,
evaluate and use professional literature to
make ethical‐based practical decisions.
PLO4: Graduates will have knowledge of
relevant agriculture policies, laws, and
regulations necessary for compliance (SLO6,
SLO7, SLO8).
SLO4: Graduates will be versed in accounting
terminology and be able to prepare general
journal entries (debit and credit).
PLO5: Graduates will have strong verbal and
written communication skills, as well as
professional and leadership skills (SLO6, SLO7,
SLO8).
SLO5: Graduates will be able to calculate and
understand financial ratios and other relevant
financial and accounting metrics and
communicate results.
SLO6: Students are able to apply
management, economic, and business
theories and principles towards business and
policy problem solving.
SLO7: Students are able to apply the principles
of human resource management to different
situations.
26 | P a g e
Table 6b – Assessment Plan
SLOs Where each SLO is
assessed
Assessment
activity used
to measure
each SLO.
Assessment tool
used to measure
outcome success
How assessment
data will be
reported as
evidence SLO
performance
criteria have
been met
Designated
personnel to
collect, analyze,
and interpret
student learning
outcome data for
the program
Student
learning
outcome
data
dissemina
tion
schedule
Closing
the loop
strategies
SLO1 Food and
Agribusiness
Marketing (ABM
3040); Promotion
and Advertising for
Agribusiness (ABM
3090)
Final Class
Project/
Presentation
Department/
Instructor
determined rubric
Report on
percentage of
students at the
introductory,
developing and
mastery level in
each course and
the number that
meet or exceed a
minimum level
for each SLO
Course instructor
will grade
assessment using
rubric and will
distribute results
to the Department
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
AY 18‐19
AY 21‐22
SLO2 Food and
Agribusiness
Marketing (ABM
3040)
Final Class
Project/
Presentation
Department/
Instructor
determined rubric
Report on
percentage of
students at the
introductory,
developing and
mastery level in
each course and
the number that
meet or exceed a
minimum level
for each SLO
Course instructor
will grade
assessment using
rubric and will
distribute results
to the Department
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
AY 19‐20,
AY 22‐23
SLO3 Data Management
for Agribusiness
(ABM 3750);
Ethical Issues in
Food, Agriculture
and Apparel (AG
4010)
Class writing
assignment.
Assignments will
be graded
following a rubric
for Information
Literacy and
Critical Thinking.
Performance will
be measured in
one or two
different sections
for a common
written
assignment.
Work from a
random sample
from each course
(15 or so
students) will be
used for the
assessment.
One‐two AG 4010
professors will be
in designated to
collect the data
and do the
assessment.
AY 20‐21
AY 23‐24
SLO4 Accounting for
Agribusiness I
(ABM 2240);
Accounting for
Agribusiness II
(ABM 2260)
Key problems
from a
cumulative
final exam,
which will
include debit
Oral, Written
communication
rubrics, &
Blackboard
quizzes/ exams.
Student
Student
performance on
each question
reported by
question and
data aligned by
Course instructor
will organize and
facilitate
assessment and
distribute results
to Department
27 | P a g e
and credit
entries.
Assessment,
questionnaire & or
class survey
subject area.
Student
performance on
oral critical
thinking ability
reported by
presentation on
subject matter.
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
SLO5 Financial Analysis
for Agribusiness
(ABM 3260)
Exam
problems
Student
performance on
each question
reported by
question and data
aligned by subject
area
Course instructor
will organize and
facilitate
assessment and
distribute results
to Department
Assessment
Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
Course instructor
will grade
assessment using
rubric and will
distribute results
to the Department
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
AY 19‐20
AY 22‐23
SLO6 Applied Economics
for Agribusiness
(ABM 3110);
agricultural Law
and Compliance
(ABM 4130); Food
and Agriculture
Policy (ABM 3130)
Final exam
current
event/policy
short essay.
Assignments will
be graded
following a rubric
for Information
Literacy and
Critical Thinking.
The final exam
question will
assess student
ability to use
economic
thinking and
models to
interpret real
world situations
and policy
scenarios.
Course instructor
will organize and
facilitate
assessment and
distribute results
to Department
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data
AY 18‐19
AY 21‐22
SLO7 Agribusiness
Personnel
Management
(ABM 4020); Sales
and Professional
Development for
Agribusiness
Marketing (ABM
3100);
Agribusiness
Organizations and
Careers (ABM
2010)
Final Class
Project/Prese
ntation
Department/
Instructor
determined rubric
Report on
percentage of
students at the
introductory,
developing and
mastery level in
each course and
the number that
meet or exceed a
minimum level
for each SLO
Course instructor
will grade
assessment using
rubric and will
distribute results
to the Department
Assessment Team.
Department
Assessment Team
will analyze data.
AY 20‐21
AY 23‐24
28 | P a g e
Table 6c– Data Collection/Dissemination Plan
SLO AY 18‐19 AY 19‐20 AY 20‐21 AY 21‐22 AY 22‐23
SLO 1 X X
SLO 2 X X
SLO3 X
SLO4 X
SLO5 X X
SLO6 X X Table 6d provides a curriculum map/matrix showing how courses in the program meet the student learning outcomes.
Table 6d – SLO Matrix
Required Other Experience
ABM 2010
ABM 2240
ABM 2260
ABM 3040
ABM 3090
ABM 3100
ABM 3110
ABM 3130
ABM 3260
ABM 3750
AG 4010
ABM 4020
ABM 4130
Intern
ship
Survey
Exit
Interview
SLO 1 D, A D, A
SLO 2 I D, A D
M
SLO3 I
D D, A D, A
SLO4 D,A
D,A
SLO5 I I
D, A M
SLO6 D, A D, A M, A
SLO7 I D, A M, A
I = introduced; D = developed and/or practiced; M = demonstrated mastery; A = Assessed
29 | P a g e
3.3. Assessment Consequences and Conclusions
The faculty of the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program are interested in
assessment and have some experience with assessment. Dr. Phillips was the assessment coordinator of
the Huntley College of Agriculture for two years during the period of review. As such, he was the
founding chair of the College of Agriculture Learning Measurement (CALM) Committee. He has also been
a member of assessment‐related committees at the university level. This includes his membership on
the General Education Assessment Committee and the Academic Programs Assessment Committee. Dr.
Phillips and Dr. Archambault have both represented the ABM program on the CALM Committee.
The ABM program has an emerging assessment initiative. As indicated above, two Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) are scheduled for assessment in AY 2018 – 2019. Those SLOs are SLO1 and SLO6.
Following are some details of the assessment of these two SLOs.
SLO1 ‐ Graduates will be able to describe marketing's strategic role in an agribusiness organization and
design a marketing plan for an agribusiness product.
The assessment for SLO1
Professor Ben Lehan taught ABM 3040 in fall, 2018. He required students to write a marketing plan for
this class. Prof. Lehan collected and saved the marketing plans, i.e., artifacts, to allow for assessment.
Program faculty developed an instrument to assess the degree to which students achieved SLO1. We
have performed assessment on the artifacts from ABM 3040, fall 2018, using the rubric we developed.
That individual will complete the assessment for SLO1 by the end of spring 2019. The criteria and results
are listed below.
Table 7a Assessment Results for SLO 1, from ABM 3040, fall 2018, n = 14
Category Description (Frequency)
(3) Exceeds expectations Plan is complete, thorough, convincing, and concise.
Sources are properly documented and the manuscript is
professional in appearance. (1)
(2) Meets expectations Plan is complete and is reasonably well articulated. The key
premises of the plan are clear and believable. (7)
(1) Does not quite meet
expectations
All major sections of the plan are included. The writing is
understandable, but the plan is unconvincing. (4)
(0) Definitely inadequate Plan has major sections missing. This category may also
contain plans that have major writing issues, i.e., writing is
such that the ideas are unclear. (2)
How we are improving student learning based on the assessment for SLO1
As mentioned above, we have an emerging assessment initiative. We plan to use the assessment results
for SLO1 we obtained during spring 2019 to improve student learning. After we make appropriate
changes, we can assess SLO1 again to determine whether student learning improved.
SLO6 ‐ Students are able to apply management, economic, and business theories and principles towards
business and policy problem solving.
30 | P a g e
The assessment for SLO6
There are multiple components in SLO6, i.e., applying management, economic, and business theories.
ABM faculty have addressed how to assess SLO6 in our monthly department meetings. What we decided
was to include an embedded exam question in ABM 3110, Applied Economics for Agribusiness. We still
have to either find or develop an instrument to assess SLO6. We anticipate implementing assessment for
this SLO in late spring or summer 2019.
How we are improving student learning based on the assessment for SLO6
We will have to determine the necessary steps to improve student learning related to SLO6. We will
have to either find or develop an instrument to assess SLO6, first. We will also have to complete the
assessment for SLO6 before we can determine appropriate action(s) to improve student learning related
to SLO6.
Following are a few more examples of assessment that the ABM faculty has completed during the period
of review. These examples relate to WSCUC big five core competencies that all undergraduates should
master.
Ben Lehan, an ABM faculty member, used the Cal Poly Pomona approved rubric to assess information
literacy as well as critical thinking. The relevant class was AG 401, Sec. 6, in spring 2017. The relevant
class was AG 401, Sec. 6, in spring 2017.
The major assessment activity for the ABM program during AY 2017 – 2018 related to the written
communication core competency. To analyze how well ABM students achieved in written
communication, we analyzed the results of the Graduation Writing Test (GWT). The results were based
on collected student work, so this was an example of direct assessment.
The timeframe was 2017 and 2018, up to May.
Table 7b ‐ Graduation Writing Test, ABM Students, 2017‐2018
2017 2018
Score, out of 12 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
4 1 1.8 0 0
5 1 1.8 1 5.2
6 4 7.4 1 5.2
7 3 5.5 4 21
8 15 27.8 3 15.8
9 15 27.8 6 31.6
10 15 27.8 4 21
Total 54 ~100 (rounding) 19 ~100 (rounding)
There was a much smaller sample size in ’18 compared to ’17. The test requires a score of 7 or higher to
pass. In ’17, (5.5 + 27.8 + 27.8 + 27.8) = 88.9% of the students passed. In ’18, (21 + 15.8 + 31.6 + 21) =
89.4% of the students passed. This reflects a small improvement from ’17 to ’18. We are cautiously
optimistic as we await additional results from this exam.
31 | P a g e
In accordance with the principle of triangulation, we implemented another assessment of written
communication. Dr. Phillips assessed written communication in AG 401 Sec. 11, from summer, 2017. The
artifact was a paper assignment, N = 20. For this assessment, he used the ‘Written Communication’
rubric that was developed by the Faculty Learning Community, in conjunction with the annual
Assessment Institute at Cal Poly Pomona, 2017. The score is an average, from a 0 – 3 scale, with 3 being
the best.
Purpose for Writing: 2.6
Organization & Development: 2.5
Evidence & Sources: 2.3
Grammar & Mechanics: 2.5
The strongest area for the sample was ‘Purpose for Writing.’ The weakest area was ‘Evidence &
Sources.’ We took action to improve students’ capabilities regarding evidence and sources. We
scheduled a workshop on these topics during Spring 2018. Two librarians and a representative of the
Writing Center came to the Huntley College of Agriculture and conducted the workshop. Faculty from
the ABM program, as well as other programs in the college, participated in the workshop.
32 | P a g e
Section 4. Program Quality
The section of the self‐study includes both evaluation of faculty and student success indicators
4.1. Faculty
4.1.1. Quality of Teaching
Each quarter, department leadership evaluated results from the Student evaluation of Faculty (SEF). The
form for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program consists of 15 questions. It
appears as Appendix C. Students answer SEF questions on a 1 – 5 scale, with ‘1’ being the best. (In our
SEF system, a low score is better than a high score.)
For the purpose of this program review, we compiled SEF results for all 200‐ level courses for AY 17‐18.
We wanted to present averages for multiple classes to preserve the anonymity of individual instructors.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) classifies results of SEFs as personnel material, and therefore
we cannot disclose data for individual instructors. The reason we selected the 200‐level courses for this
program review is these are generally the first courses students take in the program.
Students often switch majors early in their academic careers. It is crucial to meet the needs of students
early in their academic careers to dissuade them from switching majors. Furthers, we want to get
students on a good path as they move into their upper‐division courses. The results of the SEFs for 200‐
level courses appear in the table below. The averages for each quarter and for the year are weighted
averages. Specifically, the average response for each question in a class is weighted by the number of
responses that contributed to that average.
33 | P a g e
Table 8a ‐ Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) results for 200‐level ABM classes, AY 2017 – 2018.
Results are weighted averages.
Student Evaluation Questions
Fall Qtr.
Average
Winter
Qtr.
Average
Spring
Qtr.
Average
2017‐2018
Average
1.1) Preparation for class meetings (lessons etc.) 1.19 1.21 1.14 1.18
1.2) Conduct of class 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.20
1.3) Knowledge of subject 1.16 1.19 1.08 1.15
1.4) Oral presentation of subject matter 1.31 1.24 1.21 1.25
1.5) Ability to answer questions in class 1.29 1.18 1.11 1.19
1.6) Assignments 1.38 1.34 1.27 1.33
1.7) Examinations 1.43 1.32 1.29 1.35
1.8) Fairness in grading 1.20 1.18 1.21 1.20
1.9) Ability to stimulate independent thinking and work 1.38 1.23 1.21 1.27
1.10) Treatment of student opinion 1.28 1.19 1.08 1.19
1.11) Ability to interest students 1.45 1.26 1.14 1.29
1.12) Attitudes towards students 1.32 1.18 1.14 1.21
1.13) Class involvement in learning process 1.30 1.24 1.17 1.24
1.14) Amount learned in course 1.32 1.36 1.29 1.32
1.15) Availability of instructor for individual, out‐of‐
class help during posted office hours 1.20 1.32 1.09 1.20
Overall Average 1.30 1.24 1.17 1.24
The Huntley College of Agriculture set a goal of ‘2’ or less for SEFs. As indicated in the table above, the
averages for fall 2017, winter 2018, and spring 2018 were less than ‘2,’ so we exceeded the goal. In fact,
the highest (i.e., worst) average for the AY was 1.33 for ‘Assignments,’ which is still quite good. The
lowest (i.e., best) average for the AY was 1.15 (‘Knowledge of subject’) followed closely by ‘Preparation
for class meetings’ at 1.18. These results indicate that students are satisfied with the respective
preparation and background of the ABM instructors.
34 | P a g e
4.1.2. Research and Scholarly Activities
Table 8b – Numbers and Types of Research and Scholarly Activities by ABM Faculty, 2012 ‐ 18
Faculty
Peer Review
Publications
Grants and Contracts
Other Publications
Conference Oral
presentations
Conference Posters
Presentations
Extension Oral
presentations
Graduate Student
Invo
lvement
Reviews of Articles an
d
Proposals
Phillips 1 1 2 5 6 20 4 3
Archambault 4 1 5 5 0 3 3 6
Lehan 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0
Farias 0 0 3 1 0 31 0 0
Joint 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total 5 2 10 11 7 69 7 9
35 | P a g e
CVs of tenure/tenure‐track faculty of the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program are
included as Appendix D. We extracted the research and scholarly activities of the tenure/tenure‐track
faculty and added the research and scholarly activities of the lecturers. This is included as Appendix E.
Faculty had research and scholarly accomplishments in the following areas: peer‐reviewed publications;
other publications; grant and contract activity; oral presentations at conferences; poster presentations
at conferences; oral presentations in extension settings; review of scholarly articles, conference
proposals, etc.; and other research and scholarly activities.
To be an effective teacher, one must remain active in research and scholarly activities. Considering that
there are only two tenure/tenure‐track faculty in the ABM program, the amount of research and
scholarly activities listed in Appendix E is remarkable. The university, college, and department support
research and scholarly activities. The college offers up to $1,500 to every tenure/tenure‐track faculty
member for professional growth. Faculty usually use the funding for travel to attend a conference or
meeting of a professional association. The university also has the Provost’s Teacher Scholar Program to
assist faculty who involve students in their research and scholarly activities. Dr. Phillips has received
three awards from this program so far.
The college has extended the $1,500 to every lecturer teaching at least eight Weighted Teaching Units
(WTUs). The college has provided additional support for professional growth on a case‐by‐case basis.
The department also has the Provenzano Endowment for Faculty Development. This account supports
professional growth among faculty, up to $1,500 per year. Tenured, tenure‐track, and lecturers may
apply for and receive funding from the Provenzano Endowment. In the ways specified above, the
support provided by the university, college, and department enhances the educational capability of the
program and department.
In addition, ABM faculty have engaged in research and scholarly activities that have resulted in
publications and conference presentations. These publications and presentations often include students
as co‐authors. In this way, the support provided by the university, college, and department can help
students add achievements to the resumes of students as well as faculty. Involvement in undergraduate
research is a high‐impact practice. Such involvement increases the likelihood that students stay in
college and eventually graduate. This is another way that the support provided by the university, the
college, and the department enhances the department.
36 | P a g e
4.1.3. Service
A summary of service activities of the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) faculty appears
in Appendix F. This summary demonstrates that department faculty participate in service at various
levels, including but not limited to, the department, the university, the profession, and the community.
The ABM program has several ongoing committees, including but not limited to, the Reappointment,
Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Committee and the Scholarship Committee. These committees
demonstrate committee involvement. The fact that we are able to staff these committees year after
year and accomplish the required tasks is evidence of collegiality. The ABM faculty is also involved in
interdisciplinary activities. An example of this are that Dr. Archambault served on a search committee
for Associate Provost (a university‐level position) in AY 2017 – 18. Other examples are Dr. Phillips served
on search committees for the Dean of Agriculture (AY 2013 – 14) and for the Associate Dean of
Agriculture (Co‐Chair, AY 2015 – 16).
ABM faculty regularly participate in faculty development activities. For example, Cal Poly Pomona’s
Department of Academic Support and Learning Services hosted a workshop on Supplemental Instruction
that Dr. Phillips and Prof. Hammack attended. Five ABM faculty also attended a workshop on Flipping
the Classroom.
Regarding civic engagement and other community outreach, ABM faculty are involved but on an
individual basis.
ABM faculty are involved in service functions for other programs. The College of Letters, Arts, and Social
Sciences (CLASS) offers an interdisciplinary Bachelor’s program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS).
Dr. Phillips has been a member of the faculty board of advisors of the STS program throughout the
period of review (until the present). The College of the Extended University (CEU) offers certificate
programs for international delegations. Dr. Phillips regularly (i.e., once or twice a year) presents
seminars as part of these programs. Examples of this are appear in the Research and Scholarly Activities
section of this self‐evaluation. Dr. Archambault is working with Plant Science faculty to develop the
college‐wide Urban Agriculture Initiative. We have no definite plans for an increase or decrease in
service functions for other programs. We hope that these activities will increase, as we recruit a new
Assistant Professor.
Participating in service activities at various levels enhances the mission of the department, the college,
and the university. Networking and partnering with people from throughout the university enhances the
visibility of the ABM program. The goal is to attract additional students to the ABM program as we
increase our visibility. An example of networking and partnering relates to CPP Dining Services. The ABM
faculty member who teaches our wholesaling and retailing class (ABM 3060) is partnering with Dining
Services. Students will work with Dining Services to introduce Cal Poly Pomona‐grown produce to their
distribution and sales system. Dining Services will provide sales and volume data for ABM faculty and
students to use in class to help students meet relevant learning outcomes.
It is a similar situation with faculty members providing service to the community. The more time faculty
members spend assisting community organizations, the greater chance they have to spread the word
about the programs and events in the Huntley College of Agriculture and Cal Poly Pomona in general.
37 | P a g e
Awareness and interest are built through multiple exposures. If we build interest in a sufficient number
of people, a certain fraction will take action and either apply to one of the programs or at least urge a
friend or family member to apply. We maintain and build our programs through day‐to‐day, consistent
service efforts in the university and in the community.
4.1.4. Faculty Workload
Table 8c – Annual Average Workload Faculty
member
Teaching
WTU
Assigned
WTU for
Research
Assigned WTU
for Service
Administrative
WTU
Total WTU
Jon C. Phillips 26 0 10 15 51
Steven
Archambault
34 0 0 0 34
Nancy Merlino 45 0 0 0 45
Dorothy Farias 45 0 0 0 45
Notes: Numbers are from Fall 2015‐ Spring 2018 for Phillips, Merlino, and Farias and
Fall 2016‐Spring 2018 for Archambault (new faculty to department). Archambault received assigned
time for course preparation for his first two years, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
Figure 1 to Figure 5 provide data over 5 years on the historical Full Time Equivalent‐Faculty, Full Time
Equivalent‐Student, Student to Faculty Ratio, and Major to Faculty Ratio.
Figure 1 –Full Time Equivalent‐ Faculty (FTE‐F)10
10 ARAR “FTE‐Faculty with Status Detail Tenure‐Track and Temporary Faculty” Report http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐
data/FTES/FTE‐FacultyWithStatusDetail/FTE‐FacultyWithStatusDetailTenured_Tenure‐TrackandTemporaryFacultyFall2017.pdf
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Fall 2017 Fall 2016 Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013 Fall 2012
FTEF
Tenure/Tenure‐Track Temporary Total FTEF
38 | P a g e
Figure 2 – Full Time Equivalent‐ Student (FTES)11
Figure 3 – Full Time Equivalent‐ Student by Percentage (FTES)12
11 ARAR “FTES‐Taught with Percentages by Tenured/Tenure‐Track and Temporary Faculty” Report
http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐data/FTES/FTES‐Taught‐With‐Percentages‐by‐Tenured‐TT‐and‐Temporary‐
Faculty/FTETaughtWithPercentagesByTenuredTenureTrackandTemporaryFaculty_Fall2017.pdf
12 ARAR “FTES‐Taught with Percentages by Tenured/Tenure‐Track and Temporary Faculty” Report
http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐data/FTES/FTES‐Taught‐With‐Percentages‐by‐Tenured‐TT‐and‐Temporary‐
Faculty/FTETaughtWithPercentagesByTenuredTenureTrackandTemporaryFaculty_Fall2017.pdf
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
Fall 2017 Fall 2016 Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013 Fall 2012
FTES
Tenure/Tenure‐Track Temporary Total FTEF
39 | P a g e
Figure 4 ‐ Student Faculty Ratio (SFR)13
Figure 5 ‐ Major to Faculty Ratio (MFR)14
13 ARAR “Student Faculty Ratio (SFR)” Report http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐data/SFR/SFR‐CollegeYearReports/2017‐
2018/sfr_cy_2017_2018_final.pdf
14 ARAR “Major to Faculty Ratio” Report http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐data/Major_to_faculty_ratio/Major_to_Faculty‐
Ratio_Fall_2017.pdf
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
17‐18 16‐17 15‐16 14‐15 13‐14 12‐13
SFR
Academic Year
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
MFR
Academic Year
40 | P a g e
We will address faculty workload in this section. Figure 1 shows Full Time Equivalent – Faculty (FTE‐F) for
the fall quarters from 2012 to 2017. Total FTE – F increased from ~7 in 2012 to more than 10 in 2017.
During this time, the increase in tenure/tenure‐track faculty was 1 and the increase in temporary faculty
was just over 2.
Figure 2 shows the Full Time Equivalent – Student (FTE – S) for the fall quarters from 2012 to 2017. The
FTE ‐ S appears in total, as well as the number of FTE – S taught by tenure/tenure‐track faculty and the
number of FTE – S taught by temporary faculty. The number of FTE – S taught by the ABM program has
increased over the period. It started at 250 FTE – S in 2012. It increased steadily throughout the period,
with the exception of a dip in 2015. At the end of the period (fall 2017), FTE – S was about 375. This
represents an increase of about 125 FTE – S, or an increase of 50%.
Percentages of FTE – S taught by tenure/tenure‐track faculty vs. temporary faculty appear in Figure 3.
Tenure/tenure‐track faculty taught between 10% and 20% of FTE – S in 2012 and in 2014. In the other
years, tenure/tenure‐track faculty taught between 20% and 30% of FTE – S. The trend has been an
increase in the percentage of FTE – S taught by tenure/tenure‐track, but it has never exceeded 30%. The
goal for Cal Poly Pomona is about 67% of FTE – S taught by tenure/tenure‐track. The Agribusiness &
Food Industry Management (ABM) program is woefully short of this goal. The data in this area plainly
indicate a need to add tenure‐track faculty to the ABM program.
To improve the instruction and scholarly activity of the program and department, it is necessary to bring
in new human resources, with applicable Ph.Ds, from various universities. It is by hiring faculty who
graduated from other universities that we enhance the intellectual capability of the faculty corps. The
last two sentences apply generally, to all programs universities that require faculty to have Ph.Ds.
Further, by bringing in new faculty with Ph.Ds from other universities, we provide opportunities for our
current faculty to collaborate with and learn from the new faculty. This, in turn, promotes retention of
faculty.
Figure 4 shows the Student Faculty Ratio (SFR) for the academic years 12 – 13 to 17 – 18. The SFR has
bounced around between 27 and 34 during the period. There is no distinct pattern, either an increase or
a decrease, during the period.
The Major to Faculty Ratio (MFR) for 2012 to 2017 appears in Figure 5. The MFR was ~95 in 2012. It
decreased a bit during 2013 and 2014. The MFR increased to over 100 in 2015, which was the high for
the period. It decreased to about 80 in 2016, and stayed at about 80 in 2017. The decrease may be
attributable to the fact that we hired Dr. Archambault, who started in the program in 2016. The MFR for
the ABM program appears high compared to the typical MFRs in Cal Poly Pomona. Further evidence that
the MFR for the ABM program is relatively high is the advisement policy of the Huntley College of
Agriculture. According to this policy, when the number of advisees per faculty member exceeds 90,
funding is provided to pay temporary faculty members to advise students. This, in turn, lowers the
number of advisees per tenure/tenure‐track faculty member. Until 2017 – 2018, a temporary faculty
member in the ABM program did the bulk of the advising. Since fall 2018, however, only tenure/tenure
track ABM faculty have advised students.
We would like to provide an explanation of what the data in the Figures above mean for the future of
the department in terms of quality and growth. The department and the (ABM program in particular) is
in dire need of additional tenure/tenure‐track faculty. We had an external search for a department chair
in AY 2016‐17. That search was cancelled, resulting in no additional tenure/tenure‐track faculty. We
41 | P a g e
expected to bring in a new department chair, which would have incremented our tenure/tenure‐track
faculty by one. This did not happen. Instead, the department and ABM program had an Interim Chair
(who was also the chair of another department) for an additional six months.
An internal candidate, Dr. Phillips, became chair in January 2018. It benefitted the department and
program to have one of their own be the leader. At the same time, it reduced the number of classes
taught by tenure/tenure‐track faculty, because the chair received 50% reassigned time for
administrative duties. To make matters worse, the Assistant Professor who was supposed to start in
January 2019 decided not to come. We are currently engaged in a search for a new Assistant Professor.
If appropriate candidates are in the applicant pool, a request will be made to hire two. The implication is
that we need to have another search in 2019‐20, regardless of how the 2018‐19 search turns out.
The process of recruitment and hiring is more demanding for tenure/tenure‐track faculty than it is for
temporary faculty. Likewise, an earned doctorate (e.g., a Ph.D.) is a required qualification for new
Assistant Professors. In contrast, the highest degree earned by most of our temporary faculty is a
master’s degree. Based on this, we assume that the quality of teaching increased if the percentage of
classes taught by tenure/tenure‐track faculty increases. The previous paragraph justified hiring
additional tenure/tenure‐track faculty based on teaching. We also need tenure/tenure‐track faculty to
handle the service requirement of the program. For example, the CBA prohibits temporary faculty from
performing in‐class peer evaluations of other temporary faculty. Further, there are certain committees
that are restricted to tenure/tenure‐track faculty, including faculty search committees and RTP
committees. When a program grows and the number of tenure/tenure‐track faculty remains the same,
the service load for the tenure/tenure‐track faculty increases. That is because there are additional
temporary faculty teaching classes and therefore additional temporary faculty to evaluate.
The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department has three
tenure/tenure‐track faculty, which is the lowest among the five departments in the Huntley College of
Agriculture. We do not have the fewest students, however. The Plant Science Department has fewer
students. The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department has two
undergraduate programs, namely 1) Agribusiness & Food Industry Management and 2) Agricultural
Science. In contrast, the Plant Science Department as well as the Apparel Merchandising and
Management Department have just one undergraduate program each. The Agribusiness & Food Industry
Management – Agricultural Science Department is responsible for teaching two GE classes (AG 1010 and
AG 4010) that are required for all students in the Huntley College of Agriculture. Through these classes
and the ABM classes, we generate the second‐highest FTE‐Students among the five departments in the
Huntley College of Agriculture.
Based on all of the reasons specified above, we need additional tenure‐track faculty lines in the ABM
program.
42 | P a g e
4.2. Student Success
4.2.1. Advising and Evidence of Quality
Advising Program
There has been a change in the organization of advising for the Agribusiness and Food Industry
Management (ABM) program during the period of review. Until AY ’17 – ‘18, a lecturer was doing the
bulk of the advising. In fall, 2016, we added a new Assistant Professor. After he was here for a year, we
moved to having the tenure/tenure‐track faculty, as well as staff advisors, advise students. The current
advising assignments are as follows:
Dr. Jon C. Phillips: seniors and at‐risk students
Dr. Steven Archambault: juniors, 2‐year and 4‐year pledge students
Nami Mendenhall (staff advisor): freshmen and sophomores
Drs. Phillips and Archambault have agreed to serve as back‐ups for each other. That is, if a student has a
difficulty obtaining advisement from Dr. Phillips, s/he can obtain advisement from Dr. Archambault, and
vice versa. The Huntley College of Agriculture created an information sheet that included advising
assignments and distributed it broadly among the students. For example, a college representative sent it
by email and posted it on the doors of the main classroom building for agricultural classes.
In general, students make appointments with faculty advisors by emailing their designated advisor.
Advisors endeavor to meet with students at the earliest mutually convenient time. An exception may
occur during times of unusually high demand for advising. During such times, a faculty advisor may post
a roster of available times for advising sessions on his office door and ask students to sign up for an
appointment. The staff advisor uses the ‘roster on the office door’ method to schedule advising
appointments.
In late 2018, the Huntley College of Agriculture hired two new staff members to assist with student
success. We anticipate working with Stephanie Smith (Retention and Graduation College Advisor) to
streamline students’ pathways to graduation and improve timely graduation. DeVoneia Jordan, Career
Advisor, has already begun assisting students with resume‐writing and other necessary tasks to help
them transition to meaningful careers and maximize their potential.
To assess advising quality in the ABM program, we developed and implemented a survey. The survey
was administered to three ABM core courses during the fall 2018 semester. The results of the survey
appear in the table below. Twenty‐five surveys were submitted, in total.
Table 8d ‐ Survey results, evidence of advising quality.
Question Average
response
n for
question
Scale High anchor Low anchor
I know who my academic advisor is. 4.00 24 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
I know how to set an appointment
with my academic advisor.
4.00 25 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
43 | P a g e
Have you had an advising meeting
with your academic advisor?
0.76 25 0 ‐ 1 Yes = 1 No = 0
Was your advisor in his/her office at
the scheduled time of your first
advising meeting?
0.89 19 0 ‐ 1 Yes = 1 No = 0
My academic advisor listened to me. 4.36 19 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
Overall, I am satisfied with the
advising I have received.
3.57 19 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
[IF APPLICABLE] My academic
advisor took appropriate action
based on my concerns.
4.00 19 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
[IF APPLICABLE] My academic
advisor communicated with me
about my concerns after my first
advising meeting.
3.63 19 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
[IF APPLICABLE] My academic
advisor helped me resolve my
advising issue(s).
3.63 19 0 ‐ 5 Strongly
agree = 5
Strongly
disagree = 0
Seven questions used a 6‐point Likert scale, from Strongly agree = 5 to Strongly disagree = 0. Four of the
questions resulted in scores of at least ‘Agree.’ Three questions resulted in scores between ‘Agree’ and
‘Slightly agree.’ Two questions were yes/no, with Yes = 1 and No = 0. The average score for ‘Have you
had an advising meeting with your academic advisor?’ was .76. This means roughly three‐fourths of the
respondents had experienced an advising meeting by the time they completed the survey. Respondents
who answered ‘Yes’ to the previous question were asked ‘Was your advisor in his/her office at the
scheduled time of your first advising meeting?’ The average score for this question was .89. Due to the
potential for illness, etc., it is not feasible to get a score of 1 for this question.
Persistence Rates
Table 8e shows persistence rates for first time entering freshmen in the fall of years ’12 – ’16. The
percentage of students who persisted seems surprisingly low. There is nothing to compare these figures
to, however. It would be helpful to see the average for the Huntley College of Agriculture and/or CPP as
a whole. On a positive note, we retained 75% of the students who entered fall ’16 for one year. This was
the highest one‐year retention among the five years listed.
Table 8f shows persistence rates for transfer students entering in the fall of years ’12 – ’16. The one‐year
retention was between 75% and 100% for the five years listed. This was more reassuring than the data
from Table 8e (first time entering freshmen.) There is a possible explanation for why transfer students
were not retained for more than two years. It is possible for a transfer student to graduate after two
years. If a student graduated after two years or two and a half years, then s/he would not be retained
for the third year.
Table 8g and Figure 6 provide a one‐year snapshot of the entry major of students who graduated with a
B.S. in Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM). Fifty‐nine students are represented in the
44 | P a g e
table and figure. Twelve students (~20%) started in the ABM program. From the other perspective, ~80%
of the ABM graduates that year started out in a different program. The most common program for ABM
graduates to start in was Animal Science. Twenty‐one students started in the Animal Science program.
This is more than one‐third of the graduates. Besides Animal Science and ABM, all of the other programs
of origination were in the low single digits. Specifically, only 1 – 4 students came from each of the
programs other than ABM and Animal Science.
Table 8h presents first time freshman drop out of CPP rates for the ABM program. Between fall ’12 and
fall ’16, the head count of first time freshmen varied between 5 and 24 students, with fall ’16 being our
largest incoming class of freshmen. This table also presents the total number of CPP student dropouts,
per year, for the ABM program. The total number varied between 2 and 4. While 24 students entered in
fall ’16, just 3 dropped out. So, the dropout percentage was relatively low for the most recent year,
namely, 13%. This is a positive sign for retention of students in the ABM program.
Figure 7 presents data for graduation rates for first time freshmen that started in the Agribusiness and
Food Industry Management (ABM) program. It includes those who started in the ABM program,
subsequently left the ABM program, but graduated from CPP from another program. Because of this
quirk in the data, the ABM faculty do not have complete control over the results. For example, if a
student starts in the ABM program and switches to another major, the curriculum and advising of the
other major will have a major impact on the student’s retention and time to degree. Nevertheless, the
data shows improvement over time for the 5‐ and 6‐year graduation rates. It also shows improvement in
the number of degree recipients within 5 and 6 years. To illustrate, the number of degree recipients
within 6 years was 4 and 2 for 2005 and 2006, respectively. More recently, the number of degree
recipients within 6 years was 19 for both 2010 and 2011. Comparing these two periods, the 6‐year
graduation rates increased as well. It should be noted that the size of the starting cohorts increased
from the 2005 – 2006 period to the 2010 – 2011 period. The size of the ABM program, as measured by
number of first time freshmen pursuing an ABM degree, grew substantially during the period of review.
Similar graduation appears in Figure 8, but for fall entering transfer students. Another difference is that
graduation rates are for 2 years or less, 3 years or less, and 4 years or less. The most striking thing from
the figure is the increase in starting cohorts over time. The starting cohorts were 3 and 1 in 2005 and
2006, respectively. In contrast, the starting cohorts were 26 and 33 in 2013 and 2014, respectively. As
with the data for first time freshmen, number of fall entering transfers pursuing an ABM degree grew
substantially during the period of review. The 2‐year graduation rate tended to bounce around 30%
from 2008 – 2014, but it improved to 62.1% in 2015. With one exception, the 3‐year graduation rate
ranged between 50% and 77% between 2007 and 2014. The 3‐year graduation rate for transfers was
83.3% in 2010. The 4‐year graduation rate for transfers was volatile from 2007 to 2013. It ranged from
50% to as high as 88.5% during this period.
Table 8i lists the head count of first time freshmen in the ABM program from fall 2012 – fall 2016. Table
8i also list number of students from these cohorts who dropped out of CPP as well as dropout rates, by
year. The head count varied substantially, from a low of 5 in 2015 to a high of 24 in 2016. The total
dropout rate ranged from 13% in 2016 to 40% in 2017. The number of students who dropped out was in
the low single digits (i.e., between 2 and 4) during this period.
Similar data for transfers appears in Table 8h. The head count of transfers increased over the period of
review. It was 8 and 4 in fall 2012 and fall 2013, respectively. Table 8i shows an increase to 17 and 20 in
45 | P a g e
fall 2015 and fall 2016, respectively. No transfer students of the 4 who started in 2013 dropped out.
Among the other four years, however, either 2 or 3 students dropped out.
Table 8e8e provides persistence data for student entering the Agribusiness and Food Industry
Management Department as First‐Time Freshman only. Any on campus transfers that started in another
major as a freshman are not accounted for in the First‐Time Freshman Persistence Rates for the
Agribusiness and Food Industry Management Department.
Table 8e – Fall Entering First Time Freshman Persistence Rates15
Academic Year Head Count
Within 1 Year
Within 2 Year
Within 3 Year
Within 4 Year
Within 5 Year
Fall 2012 11 55% 45% 36% 18% 9% Fall 2013 8 63% 50% 38% 13% Fall 2014 17 59% 41% 41% Fall 2015 5 40% 20% Fall 2016 24 75%
Table 8f8f provides persistence data for student entering the Agribusiness and Food Industry
Management Department as off campus fall term Transfers. Any transfer entering in a term other than
fall or are on‐campus transfers are not accounted for in the Fall Entering Transfer Persistence Rates for
the Agribusiness and Food Industry Management Department.
Table 8f– Fall Entering Transfers Persistence Rates16
Transfers Head Count
Within 1 Year
Within 2 Year
Within 3 Year
Within 4 Year
Fall 2012 8 88% 13% 13%
Fall 2013 4 100%
Fall 2014 16 81% 38% 13% Fall 2015 17 94% 24%
Fall 2016 20 75%
Table 8g and Figure 6 are based only on the students' major as declared at entry and at graduation. It
does not show intervening discipline changes for students who made multiple migrations during their
15 CSU Dashboard “How Quickly Do They Progress” Report. https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐student‐
progress‐swarm
16 CSU Dashboard “How Quickly Do They Progress” Report. https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐student‐progress‐swarm
46 | P a g e
academic career. This table and figure also does not include students who are still enrolled, who
transferred out of the university, or who did not graduate. In addition, it is a one‐year snap shout to
provide departments general trends.
Table 8g ‐ One Year Snapshot of Starting Degree for Student Population17
Major at Entry Major at Graduation # Students
Animal Science Agricultural Business 21
Agricultural Business Agricultural Business 12
Food Science Agricultural Business 4
Undeclared Agricultural Business 4
Dietetics and Food Administration, Nutritional Science Agricultural Business 3
Agricultural Science and Education Agricultural Business 2
Biology Agricultural Business 2
Mechanical Engineering Agricultural Business 2
Electrical Engineering Agricultural Business 1
Civil Engineering Agricultural Business 1
Economics Agricultural Business 1
Gender, Ethnic, Women's Studies Agricultural Business 1
Biotechnology Agricultural Business 1
Chemistry Agricultural Business 1
Kinesiology, Physical Education Agricultural Business 1
Hospital Management Agricultural Business 1
Business Administration Agricultural Business 1
Figure 6: CSU Major Migration for all First‐Time Freshman Who Graduated in 2014, 2015, or 201618
17 CSU Dashboard “What Paths Do They Follow” Report https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐what‐paths‐do‐
they‐follow
18 CSU Dashboard “What Paths Do They Follow” Report https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐what‐paths‐do‐
they‐follow
47 | P a g e
Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the Graduation Rates of all student that entered in Agribusiness and Food
Industry Management program in fall as either First‐Time Freshman or Off‐Campus Transfers. The data
accounts for students that started in Agribusiness and Food Industry Management and those that left
Agribusiness and Food Industry Management but still graduated from CPP in another degree.
Figure 7 – First Time Freshman Graduation Rates19
19 Source: Tableau
https://analytics.cpp.edu/#/site/production/views/GraduationandPersistence/TRGradRates?:iid=1
48 | P a g e
Figure 8 – Fall Entering Transfers Graduation Rates20
Table 8h and
Table 8i provide data on students that entered in Agribusiness and Food Industry Management and
dropped out of CPP. Student Success is measured as students that graduated from CPP.
Table 8h – First Time Freshman Drop Out of CPP Rates21
Academic Year
Head Count
1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4 yr 5 yr Total # of CPP
Student Drop‐Out
Fall 2012 11 27% 3
Fall 2013 8 38% 3
20 Source: Tableau
https://analytics.cpp.edu/#/site/production/views/GraduationandPersistence/TRGradRates?:iid=1
21 Source: CSU Dashboard “How Quickly Do They Progress” Report https://csusuccess.dashboards.calstate.edu/public/db‐student‐progress‐swarm
49 | P a g e
Fall 2014 17 24% 4
Fall 2015 5 20% 40% 2 Fall 2016 24 13% 3
Table 8i– Fall Entering Transfers Drop Out of CPP Rates22
Academic Year Head Count
1 yr. 2 yr. 3 yr. 4 yr. Total # of CPP Student
Drop‐Out
Fall 2012 8 13% 25% 2
Fall 2013 4 Fall 2014 16 13% 13% 19% 3
Fall 2015 17 6% 12% 2
Fall 2016 20 15% 3
Strategies to Improve Student Success and Reduce the Success Gap
The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department is engaging in efforts
to improve student success. One strategy relates to retaining students each semester. The Huntley
College of Agriculture generates a list of active students who registered for zero units at the beginning of
each semester. The list also contains active students who registered for between 1 and 11 units. (These
students have a less than full time schedule.) The department chair reaches out to these students by
email during the drop‐add period. The chair urges these students to register for more units and offers to
assist students with any registration or other issues they may have, upon request. This is the most direct
strategy to retain students and help them to graduate, eventually.
Another strategy to improve student success is through advising. Advising starts during orientation.
Students participate in orientation before they start at Cal Poly Pomona. In each orientation, there is an
advising session that can last up to 3 hours. A faculty member, usually the department chair, leads the
advising session. Current students assist as well. The Huntley College of Agriculture has a group of
students called Peer Advisors. One of their duties is to assist students with registration during the
orientation advising session. Club officers from the ABM program often assist incoming students during
these sessions as well.
Advising continues during students’ academic careers. The advising program for ABM students is
described in the ‘Advising Program’ description, included above in this section. Due to the fact that there
are only two tenure/tenure track faculty in the ABM program, each advisor has a relatively high number
of advisees. The Huntley College of Agriculture, and CPP in general, is moving in the direction of staff
advisors. Starting in fall, 2017, a staff advisor has begun to advise freshmen and sophomore ABM
students.
The department also engages in indirect methods of retention. Certain practices increase the likelihood
that affected students will stay in college and eventually graduate. Such practices are called high‐impact
50 | P a g e
practices. The high‐impact practices of the ABM program are mentioned elsewhere in this self‐
evaluation. We will address them briefly here as well.
Serving as an officer in a student club is a high‐impact practice. The ABM program has two student clubs,
namely the ABM Club and the National Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) Club. These clubs provide
substantial opportunities for students to serve as officers.
Participating in intercollegiate competitions related to a student’s major is another high impact practice.
The ABM program sent students to several intercollegiate competitions at conferences of NAMA and the
Food Distribution Research Society (FDRS) during the period of review.
Undergraduate research is a high impact practice. Dr. Phillips has received support from the Provost’s
Teacher‐Scholar Program. This program provides assigned time to faculty to facilitate their engagement
in research with undergraduate students. Dr. Phillips has had a number of oral and poster presentation
at conferences with students as co‐authors. These are listed in the ‘Research and Scholarly Activities’
section of this self‐evaluation. Dr. Archambault also has a research program that involves undergraduate
students. For example, since February 2018, he has been developing a commercial‐scale aquaponics
system on campus. Undergraduate students are collaborating on this aquaponics research and
demonstration project.
Studying abroad is a high‐impact practice. The ABM program does not sponsor a study abroad program.
ABM students, however, have participated in study abroad programs sponsored by other programs
within CPP. This year, ABM has started collaborating with our Apparel Merchandising and Management
(AMM) program on a study abroad program to London, England. One ABM student is scheduled to
participate, starting in January 2019. We hope to expand this program to more ABM students in the
future.
There isn’t any information about the underrepresented minority (URM) success gap in the tables of this
section. We are aware that reducing and eventually eliminating the URM success gap is a priority within
the California State University (CSU). We currently do not have any specific activities that aim to improve
the success of URM students specifically. We are trying to use the strategies described above (e.g.,
advising and high impact practices) to help all students succeed. It is a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’
approach. One possibility to reduce the URM success gap would be to recruit faculty that more closely
match the demographics of the ABM students. This will be a slow process, however. We have only hired
one new tenure‐track faculty member for the ABM program since 2002.
4.2.2. Learning Environment
Positive characteristics are related to the learning environment of the B.S. program in Agribusiness &
Food Industry Management (ABM). We have consistently held two events related to the ABM program:
the final dinner of the AG 464 class and the annual Spring Banquet. This section will address these two
events as well as faculty involvement in student clubs.
AG 464 relates to agricultural leadership. The dinner for this class occurred at the end of the quarter and
served as the final exam. Typically, 16 industry professionals attended the dinner. They engaged in mock
interviews and panel presentations. Students in the class had many opportunities to interact with the
industry professionals during the interviews and panel sessions.
51 | P a g e
There were a couple of major goals for our annual Spring Banquet. The most important goal was to
recognize achievements of the students. We recognized students for the following accomplishments:
Scholarship recipients
Dean’s List or President’s List honorees
Intercollegiate competition participants
Club officers
Graduating seniors
Another goal is to thank our donors. Scholarship donors had the opportunity to make a brief
presentation and meet the students who received their scholarships.
Faculty are involved in student clubs as advisors. At Cal Poly Pomona, clubs must have at least one
faculty advisor. The ABM program has two clubs: the ABM Club and our campus National Agri‐Marketing
Association (NAMA) chapter. Both of these clubs have at least two advisors. The advisors take students
on field trips. The ABM Club, for example, has gone on local as well as overnight field trips. These trips
take students to various facilities related to agribusiness and food industry management. The ABM Club
has toured the Los Angeles Produce Market, produce packinghouses, and animal rescue facilities.
The Huntley College of Agriculture hosts a Pumpkin Festival each October. This event attracts ~100,000
visitors each year. It is the primary fundraising opportunity for clubs in the college. The ABM Club has
participated in the Pumpkin Festival each year. Cal Poly Pomona has a rule that a faculty member must
be present on‐site when club members are handling cash. Faculty advisors have consistently
participated in this even to assist the ABM Club.
The main goal of the NAMA club is to participate in the annual student NAMA competition at the spring
NAMA Conference. We sent teams to competitions in 2014 (Jacksonville, FL), 2016 (Kansas City, MO),
and 2018 (Kansas City, MO). A faculty advisor accompanies the team to the competitions. We have also
sent teams to the annual Food Marketing Challenge. We have participated in this event at three Food
Distribution Research Society (FDRS) Conferences. A faculty advisor accompanies the students to the
FDRS competitions as well.
These events serve to develop a connection between students and the ABM program. We would like to
continue these events. Unfortunately, the faculty member who was the primary advisor of the ABM Club
got another job and moved out of town. While she still teaches online classes for the ABM program, her
extra‐curricular involvement has ceased. It will be a challenge to get another faculty member to take on
the duties formerly performed by this faculty member. We plan to continue to participate in the
intercollegiate competitions, e.g., NAMA and FDRS. We are considering adding another competition,
namely, the National Grocers Association competition.
Sec. 4.2.3 First Year Experience
As mentioned in Section 2.2.3 General Education and Service Courses, the Huntley College of Agriculture had a first year experience course during the period of review. Specifically, the course was AG 100 Orientation to the College of Agriculture (1 unit). Ms. Rhonda Ostrowski, Retention and Recruitment Coordinator for the Huntley College of Agriculture, organized the class. Graduate students taught the course, primarily in the fall quarter but on a limited basis in the winter quarter as well. AG 100 was required for all incoming freshmen in the Huntley College of Agriculture. Transfer students who came into the college with less than one year’s worth of units also had to take AG 100.
52 | P a g e
The course had a healthy enrollment, as indicated above. An issue with AG 100 occasionally arose, however. Sometimes, students would either fail AG 100 or not take it. When they approached graduation, of course they did not want to take it as they had made it through almost all of their respective programs without the course. Toward the beginning of the period of review, the Huntley College of Agriculture took a hard line in these circumstances. This resulted in seniors occasionally taking AG 100. As we approached semester conversion, however, things changed. There was a big push to get students graduated before we converted to semesters. The policy of the Huntley College of Agriculture was to relax the requirement for AG 100, i.e., to accept a different course to fulfil this 1‐unit requirement. Based on a conversation at a recent College Leadership Team (CLT) meeting, the consensus was that we should move back to a strict policy for the first year experience courses. Following is an excerpt from Section 2.2.3 General Education and Service Courses. “The college leadership during semester conversion decided that each program would develop its own first year experience (FYE) course. Going forward, students in each program will take an FYE course specific to their own, individual program, e.g., PLT 1000, AHS 1000, and AGS 1000.” The original plan was to use ABM 2010 Agribusiness Organizations and Careers (3 units) as our FYE course under semesters. This did not work out as planned. The Expanded Course Outline (ECO) did not include material required for an FYE course. The other major in the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department had developed a standard FYE course, namely, AGS 1000 Orientation to Agricultural Science (1 unit). We decided to add AGS 1000 to the required core of the ABM program, starting in fall 2019. AGS will be the FYE course for the ABM program going forward. 4.2.4 Student Commitment, Motivation and Satisfaction
Students in the B.S. in Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program are committed to
successfully pursuing their degrees. Most of our students start in another major and switch to the ABM
major. This demonstrates commitment because they decided to continue to pursue a B.S. degree after
they realized that their first major did not meet their needs.
Our students are motivated as well. Once example of this is the participation of our students in
intercollegiate competitions related to their major. It takes a lot of motivation to travel to ta
competition in another state, make a presentation in front of industry judges, etc. The annual National
Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) competition requires students to work together for about three
months. Students develop a five‐page executive summary business/marketing plan and submit it to the
national office of NAMA. This type of long term group project requires a lot of motivation. The ABM
program has two student clubs: the ABM Club and the NAMA Club. The officers of these clubs have to
attend workshops with our Associated Students Inc. (ASI, student government) each summer. They also
have to complete a substantial amount of forms at get required approvals. Successfully completing this,
year after year, for two clubs, demonstrates a great deal of commitment and motivation.
In summer, 2018, we implemented a survey to ascertain student opinions about the program outcomes
and quality. This is also a measure of satisfaction. The results of the survey are given in the table below.
Table: 8j ‐ Survey results, indirect assessment of program outcomes, n = 5. The scale was from Strongly
Agree = 4 to Strongly Disagree = 1.
Question Average response
1. I am equipped with a foundation for growth and professional success. 3.4
53 | P a g e
2. I am able to apply my knowledge and skills to future challenges and opportunities.
3.8
3. I can take an active role as a citizen in a diverse multicultural environment. 3.6
4. I am a good writer.
3.4
5. I am a good oral communicator. 3.6
6. I am good at critical thinking.
3.6
7. I am a good at quantitative reasoning. 3.4
8. I have information literacy.
3.4
Note: The survey included the following explanatory information for Question #8: “Information literacy is a set of abilities
requiring individuals to ‘recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the
needed information.’ [Source: American Library Association. Presidential Committee of Information Literacy. Final Report.
(Chicago: American Library Association, 1989.)]”
In the survey, we asked eight questions related to three university learning outcomes and the ‘Big Five’
learning outcomes from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). The scale was
from ‘Strongly Agree’ = 5 to ‘Strongly Disagree’ = 1. As indicated in the table above, respondents were
generally satisfied with the outcomes of the ABM program. This uses a self‐assessment (or indirect
assessment) of students’ skills and abilities as a proxy for satisfaction. A limitation of the survey was its
small sample size (n= 5). If we administer the survey again in future years, we should take action to
ensure a larger sample size.
4.2.5 Co‐Curricular Learning Experiences
Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, the ABM program included a required internship. During the crisis,
students were having difficulty finding internships. We were faced with a situation where students
registered for internship classes (ABM 441 & 442), but did not have an internship. Due to this, we
eliminated the internship requirement. We continued to offer ABM 441 for a limited number of
students. The table below shows the number of students who took ABM 441 & 442 during the period of
review.
54 | P a g e
Table 8k ‐ Number of offerings and number of students enrolled in internship classes, ABM 441 & 442.
ABM
441
# of Offers 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
# of Students 14 10 11 17 9 7 6 7 7 8 4 4 3 1 3
ABM
442
# of Offers 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
# of Students 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
We still ran into the situation where students would register for ABM 441 and not have an internship.
They occasionally approached faculty to request an alternate assignment. In cases where the students
were about to graduate, faculty gave them an alternate assignment, e.g., to write a paper about
business strategy in an agri‐food industry. While this was expedient in terms of getting students
graduated, the students’ transcripts indicated they passed an internship class when they may not have
had an internship. Further, students were registering for the internship classes and request credit for an
internship that they previously completed. A recently promulgated Cal Poly Pomona internship policy
disallows credit for completed internships, i.e., previous work.
Because of these issues, we have since stopped offering ABM 441 and ABM 442. Instead, we refer
students who are interested in taking an internship course to the applicable course in a different
department, namely, International Business and Marketing (IBM). They have agreed to allow ABM
students in their internship classes. Moving forward, we would like to re‐introduce our internship course
and work closely with the Cal Poly Pomona Internship Office to make sure we are complying with all
applicable policies and procedures. For example, this office requires a site visit to the hosting company
and a signed agreement from the hosting company.
Undergraduate research is a valuable tool to promote retention and eventual graduation of students. As
such, it has been identified as a high impact practice. Faculty have regularly involved undergraduate
(and graduate) students in research and scholarly activities (see Appendix E). Dr. Phillips has received an
award from the Provost’s Teacher‐Scholar Program three times in recognition of his research activities
that involve students.
55 | P a g e
4.2.6 Other Indicators of Student Success
The following table provides results from an indirect assessment of our alumni.
Table 8l – Results of ABM Alumni Survey
# Question Average # of replies
1 I am satisfied with the quality of the agribusiness major classes I took. 3.38 16
2 I am satisfied with the quality of the general education classes I took. 3.25 16
3 I am satisfied with the quality of the co‐curricular program of the agribusiness major, for example, club activities and department events. 3.5 16
4 Did you attend or are currently attending graduate school? 0.31 5
4a Did you continue your education in the same field as your undergraduate? 0.60 3
5 Are you currently employed? 0.94 15
5a Sales 4
5b Marketing 1
5c Finance 1
5d Accounting 1
5e Management 4
5f Education 1
5g Other 3
6 Does employment in your field requires a specific license? 0.25 4
6a Are you licensed? 1 4
This is the first time we implemented this survey. We are pleased with the results. Fifteen of sixteen
respondents are employed and four sought higher degrees.
We plan to administer this survey again in the future. We will continue to monitor the results for any
changes in responses and make adjustments as needed. Survey results will be one more way to gather
data along with conversations with industry representatives. The goal is to achieve triangulation of
external developments.
56 | P a g e
Section 5. Resources
5.1. Enrollment.
A summary of the following data should also be included:
Number of graduates employed in a field or job requiring the degree(s)
Number in graduate schools
Numbers taking and passing licensing exams
Other accomplishments by current and former students that reflect on program quality.
Figure 9 – Student Enrollment23
23 ARAR “Enrollment by Department Historical Trend” Report http://www.cpp.edu/~arar/campus‐
data/Enrollment/TREND%20REPORTS/Enrollment‐by‐Department_Historical‐Trends_UGRAD/Enrollment‐by‐Dept‐Historical‐
Trend_UGRADs.pdf
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Enrollm
ent
57 | P a g e
Discuss alumni opinions regarding the program and its quality. These may be based on survey results,
interviews or opinions of graduates invited to campus to give their views on the program in small
discussion groups or panels. How does the department use this importation to make change?
(Department) provides Five‐year enrollment data for the department. (Office of Academic Programs)
Figure 9 shows enrollment for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program. In 2013,
ABM program enrollment was just over 100 students. It gradually increased over the years to over 120
students. Let’s look at enrollment trends in gender. Here is a graph that shows national enrollment
trends, by gender.
Figure 10a – Five Year Enrollment of Full‐time Students by Gender at the National Level
Following is a graph of gender at the CSU level.
Figure 10b – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the CSU Level
At the national level and the CSU level, the majority of students are female. Females are even better
represented at the CSU level than at the national level.
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment of Full‐time Students by Gender at the National Level
Male
Female
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the CSU Level
Male
Female
58 | P a g e
The table below contains enrollment data for Cal Poly Pomona, by gender.
Table 9 – Cal Poly Pomona Enrollment Data by Gender
Cal Poly Pomona
Year Male Year Female Males ‐ Females
2013 12584 2013 9917 2667
2014 13335 2014 10631 2704
2015 13124 2015 10593 2531
2016 13819 2016 11507 2312
2017 13882 2017 12012 1870
As indicated in the table, the number of male students exceeded the number of females at Cal Poly
Pomona from 2013 – 2017. The difference peaked in 2014 and steadily decreased for the following three
years. The plurality of male students contrasts with the CSU. As shown in the graph above, the CSU as a
whole is majority‐female.
Once again, at Cal Poly Pomona, the number of male students exceeds the number of female students.
We can see where this difference comes from by looking at college data.
Figure 10c – Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Engineering, CPP
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Engineering, CPP
Male
Female
59 | P a g e
Figure 10d – Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Business Administration, CPP
Figure 10e – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Science, CPP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Business Administration, CPP
Male
Female
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Science, CPP
Male
Female
60 | P a g e
Figure 10f – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Letter, Arts & Social Sciences, CPP
Figure 10g – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Agriculture, CPP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Letter, Arts, & Social Sciences, CPP
Male
Female
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Agriculture, CPP
Male
Female
61 | P a g e
Figure 10h – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Environmental Design, CPP
Figure 10i – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Education and Integrative Studies, CPP
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Environmental Design, CPP
Male
Female
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Education and Integrative Studies, CPP
Male
Female
62 | P a g e
Figure 10j – Five Year Enrollment by Gender at the College of Hospitality Management, CPP
As indicated in the graphs above, some colleges are majority‐male and some are majority‐female. The
three largest colleges at Cal Poly Pomona are majority male. Those colleges are Engineering, Business,
and Science. The College of Environmental Design also has a majority of male students, although the
difference is small.
Four colleges are majority‐female. Those colleges are Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences; Huntley College
of Agriculture; Education and Integrative Studies; and Collins College of Hospitality Management. There
is a particularly strong female presence in the Huntley College of Agriculture, of which the ABM program
is a part. There are three or four female students for every male student in the Huntley College of
Agriculture. If Cal Poly Pomona wants to have a more gender‐balanced campus, perhaps they should
allow the majority‐female colleges (including the Huntley College of Agriculture) to expand relative to
the majority‐male colleges.
We now look at gender numbers for the ABM program.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Gender in the College of Hospitality Management, CPP
Male
Female
63 | P a g e
Figure 11 – Two Year Enrollment by Gender for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management Program,
CPP, 2018 – 2019
The ABM program is similar to the Huntley College of Agriculture in that it is also majority‐female, but
the ratio is not as large. The ABM program is more gender‐balanced than the Huntley College of
Agriculture is. In January 2018, 60.2% of the active ABM students were female. In January 2019, 55.6%
of the active ABM students were female, which indicates a decline in the percentage of female ABM
students. It is an open issue as to whether a decline in the percentage of female ABM students is
desirable. To the positive, gender balance is a good thing. On the other hand, it may be that the Huntley
College of Agriculture should enroll a strong majority of females to offset the majority‐male colleges
(e.g., Engineering, Business, and Science). If that is the case, then the decline in the percentage of female
ABM students is not desirable.
We now turn our attention to ethnicity. The graph below shows the ethnicity of full‐time, undergraduate
and graduate college students for the entire nation.
Most of the changes in the number of students from different ethnicities are relatively small. Two
changes stand out, however, for white students and for Hispanic students. From 2012 to 2018, the
number of white students went from 11,982,200 to 10,712,900, a decline of about 1.26 million students.
In contrast, during the same period, the number of Hispanic students increased from 2,980,300 to
3,426,800. The additional 446,500 Hispanic students makes up for about a third of the decline in white
students.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Year
Number of Studen
ts
Two Year Enrollment by Gender for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management Program, CPP, 2018 & 2019
Male 2018 Male 2019 Female 2018 Female 2019
64 | P a g e
Figure 12a – Five Year Enrollment by Ethnicity at the National Level
Let us look at ethnicity at the CSU level. The graph below shows five years of enrollment data for the
CSU, by ethnic group.
Figure 12b – Five Year Enrollment by Ethnicity at the CSU Level
The data for the CSU appears in a more finely grained way. Specifically, there are more ethnic categories
in the CSU data than in the national data. For example, there are two categories for Mexican American
and for Other Latino in the CSU data. In the national data, there is just one category for these ethnicities,
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Studen
ts(in thousands)
Year
Five Year Enrollment of Full‐Time Students by Ethnicity at the National Level
Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native Two or More Non‐Resident
White
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Ethnicity at the CSU Level
African American American Indian Asian Only Filipino
Other Latino Pacific Islanders White Two or More
Unknown Non‐Resident Alien Mexican American
65 | P a g e
namely, Hispanic. Nevertheless, we can still make a rough comparison between the nation and the CSU.
The CSU data, like the national data, shows a decline in the number of white students. In 2013, there
were 125,804 white students in the CSU, while in 2017 there were just 110,570. There were 15,234
fewer white students in the CSU in 2017 than there were in 2013. There was a dramatic increase in the
number of Mexican American student in the CSU during the same period. In 2013, there were 124,098
Mexican American students in the CSU, while in 2017 there were 159,762. The number of Mexican
American students in the CSU increased by 35,664 during this period. The CSU added more than twice as
many Mexican American students, compared to the decrease in white students during the period. There
was also an increase of nearly 4,000 ‘Other Latino’ students from 2013 to 2017. The number of African
American students in the CSU decreased by 689 students during the period, which is an area of concern
for the system.
We now turn out attention to the ethnicity of students at Cal Poly Pomona. The graph below presents
information regarding the ethnicity of Cal Poly Pomona students.
Figure 12c – Five Year Enrollment by Ethnicity at CCP
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Studen
ts
Year
Five Year Enrollment by Ethnicity at CPP
American Indian/Alaskan Native Only Asian Only
Black/African American Only Hispanic Latino
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander White Only
Non‐Resident Only Two or More Races
Unknown
66 | P a g e
The most obvious change in the graph above is the increase in the number of Hispanic – Latino students
at Cal Poly Pomona from 2013 to 2017. The number of Hispanic – Latino students at Cal Poly Pomona
started at 8,196 in 2013. This number steadily increased to 11,073 in 2017, for a gain of 2,877 Hispanic –
Latino students. The number of white students at Cal Poly Pomona, however, decreased during the
same period. The second most noticeable change is the decrease in ‘white only’ students from 2014 to
2017. The highest number of ‘white only’ students during the period was 4,966 in 2014. This number
steadily decreased to 4,466 in 2017, which was a loss of 500 students. The increase in Hispanic – Latino
students and the decrease in white students mirrors what happened in the CSU as a whole during the
period. On a positive note, the number of Black/African American students at Cal Poly Pomona has been
trending upwards. There were 723 Black/African American students at Cal Poly Pomona in 2013, and
there were 866 in 2017. This represents an increase of 143 Black/African American students at Cal Poly
Pomona during the period.
We now drill down further, to examine the ethnicity of students in the Huntley College of Agriculture.
We obtained student ethnicity data for agricultural students at CPP for one year, 2019. This appears in
the graph below.
Figure 13a – One‐Year Enrollment by Ethnicity for the Huntley College of Agriculture, CPP
Like the results for Cal Poly Pomona, the largest ethnicity in the Huntley College of Agriculture is
Hispanic – Latino. The plurality of Hispanic – Latino students is even greater in agriculture, however.
There are more than twice as many Hispanic – Latino students (1,174) in agriculture than the second
highest group, Asian Only (452).
Following is a graph of ethnicity of the students in the ABM program. It is a snapshot from January,
2019.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2019
Number of Studen
ts
Year
One Year Enrollment by Ethnicity for the College of Agriculture, CPP
Asian Only Black/African American OnlyHispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pac OnlyWhite Only Two or More RacesUnknown American Indian/Alaskan Native
67 | P a g e
Figure 13b – One‐Year Enrollment by Ethnicity for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management
Program, CPP
Like Cal Poly Pomona and the Huntley College of Agriculture, the largest ethnicity of ABM students is
Hispanic – Latino (56 students). Unlike the Huntley College of Agriculture, however, the second largest
ethnicity among ABM students is White Only (26 students). The third largest group of ABM students is
Asian Only students. There are 23 Asian Only students in the ABM program.
The department is involved in student outreach and recruitment. The Huntley College of Agriculture
hosts an open house each spring called Poly View. The college invites fall applicants, their parents, and
prospective students, to visit campus, meet our faculty and students, and learn about our programs and
facilities.
Each undergraduate program receives a room to decorate and occupy during the event. Regarding the
ABM program, our faculty take the lead on our presentation and our room. ABM students attend the
event as well. We invite the officers of the ABM Club and the winners of the ABM scholarships from the
previous year. These ABM students answer questions from the high school students and their families,
and generally encourage them to join our major.
The Huntley College of Agriculture has an infrastructure for recruitment and retention. Rhonda Ostrowski is the college’s Recruitment and Retention Coordinator. She has a staff member to support her recruitment and retention efforts. Her office is in charge of two important student programs related to recruitment and retention. In terms of recruitment, Ms. Ostrowski manages the Ag Ambassadors program. This is a group of students who are selected based on their leadership potential. They support the Huntley College of Agriculture in a number of ways. This includes visiting area high schools with agricultural programs and making presentations to the high school students. The Ag Ambassadors also run Ag Beautification Days, three times each year. During the Ag Beautification Days, representatives of each club assist the college by cleaning, painting, or otherwise putting into order a designated facility of the college. Ag Beautification Days help to connect students to their clubs and to the college, thus serving as retention events. Currently, one ABM student is an Ag Ambassador.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2019
Number of Studen
ts
Year
One Year Enrollment by Ethnicity for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management Program, CPP
Black/African American Only Hispanic LatinoNative Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Only White OnlyTwo or More Races UnknownAmerican Indian/Native Alaskan Only Asian Only
68 | P a g e
Another important student program of Ms. Ostrowski’s office is the Peer Advisor program. Peer Advisors provide support for retention. There is a selection process for Peer Advisors each spring. Peer Advisors hold regular office hours to assist students with any issues they may be having. This includes, but is not limited to, providing assistance with assignments, study skills, and offering opinions regarding how to navigate their respective degree programs. Peer Advisors also provide valuable assistance with orientations of first‐time freshmen and transfer students. It is very helpful to have students who have actually gone through the registration process and taken classes present when new students are registering for the first time. Currently, one ABM student is a Peer Advisor. Ms. Ostrowski’s office is also responsible for Ag Career Day, a retention tool for students in the Huntley College of Agriculture. One day each spring, representatives of a number of agricultural employers visits campus. They set up tables and greet students in the Bronco Student Center. The goal of the employer representatives is to promote their respective companies/organizations and specifically, to recruit interns and permanent employees. Students benefit by practicing their soft skills and possibly obtaining an internship or a job. Events like Ag Career Day connect students to the Huntley College of Agriculture. The department also takes action to encourage transfer students to enroll and to facilitate the smooth transition of transfer students once they join the ABM program. If a student studying at a community college contacts the department, faculty will provide him/her advice regarding joining the ABM program. Specifically, faculty will discuss program requirements and how the coursework he/she has already completed can be used to meet the requirements of the ABM program. Transfer students who are accepted must attend orientation before they start classes at Cal Poly Pomona. Prior to orientation, the applicable faculty advisor (usually the department chair) accesses and analyzes the transcripts of transfer students. The goal is to determine which Cal Poly Pomona courses are most useful to the student in getting his/her degree in ABM. We also work with the Department of Admissions and Outreach as well as the Registrar’s Office to assure efficient and accurate articulation of transfer students’ course prior to orientation. During orientation, a faculty advisor (usually the department chair) assists transfer students in selecting classes for their first semester. One or more Ag Ambassadors or Peer Advisors (see above) is also present. These highly motivated students can share their insight regarding classes they have already taken. The Ag Ambassadors/Peer Advisors are quite helpful with the technical aspects of registering for classes as well. For example, the Ag Ambassadors/Peer Advisors show the new students how to search for classes, how to add classes to their respective shopping carts, and how to complete the registration process and actually enroll in classes. Their knowledge about financial aid and fee payments due dates is also very useful and well received. Once transfer students are on campus and taking classes, they keep getting services geared to retain them. The Peer Advisors periodically host Transfer Roundtables to share information and learn about issues affecting transfer students. All students, whether transfer or native, are encouraged to attend club meetings. The ABM program has two clubs, the ABM Club and the National Agri‐Marketing Association. Getting involved in a club by attending meetings and participating in club events helps to make students feel connected with their respective majors. This is the case with the clubs in the ABM Department in particular. Our clubs help to retain students in this way. We particularly encourage students to become club officers. Being an officer in a club has been shown to be a high‐impact activity, contributing positively to retention and eventual graduation of students who engage in this activity.
69 | P a g e
The first two tables in Appendix H display persistence rates for females in the Huntley College of
Agriculture and all students in the Huntley College of Agriculture. The next two tables display
persistence rates for females in Cal Poly Pomona and all students in Cal Poly Pomona. The next two
tables display persistence rates for underrepresented minorities (URM) students in the Huntley College
of Agriculture and URMs in Cal Poly Pomona. The next two tables display persistence rates for Hispanic –
Latino students in the Huntley College of Agriculture and Hispanic – Latino students in Cal Poly Pomona.
In 2017, Dr. Phillips participated in the inaugural Faculty Data Champions project at Cal Poly Pomona. His
project was to analyze four‐year graduation rates for native students and two‐year graduation rates for
transfer students. This report provides information about persistence and graduation rates at the
‘academic organization,’ a.k.a. department, level. The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management –
Agricultural Science Department has two undergraduate programs. One of these is the ABM program.
The information does not precisely apply to the ABM program. Assuming that the persistence and
graduation rates of the two programs are similar, we can use this information as a proxy for the ABM
program. The Faculty Data Champions report shows that the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management
– Agricultural Science Department was consistently in the top half of all departments in Cal Poly Pomona
in terms of student persistence and graduation rates.
5.2. Faculty
The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) B.S. program covers all aspects of a generic business degree, but with an emphasis on food and agriculture. The areas include accounting, business economics, finance, management, and marketing. The ABM program also covers special topics that are specific to the agri‐food sector, e.g., agricultural policy and international agricultural development. It is challenging to find faculty members who have expertise in all of these areas. For much of the period of review, the ABM program had one tenure/tenure‐track faculty member. In fall, 2016, we added a second tenure‐track faculty member. We are stretched very thin regarding covering courses in all of the distinctive areas. For the classes for which there are no tenure/tenure‐track faculty to teach, we rely on lecturers. Note that of the five departments in the Huntley College of Agriculture, the Agribusiness & Use of faculty resources
Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department has the fewest tenure/tenure‐track
faculty
While some of our lecturers have been teaching for many years, they are not required to provide
department service or to engage in research/scholarly activity. This puts an added strain on the two
tenure/tenure‐track ABM faculty, particularly as the program grows. Further, one of the tenure/tenure‐
track faculty members receives 50% reassigned time for being the department chair. The other
tenure/tenure‐track faculty member receives 30% reassigned time for being the campus Agricultural
Research Initiative coordinator. With the extremely limited tenure/tenure‐track faculty teaching
resource, we intend to focus on teaching core classes, especially at the upper levels. We will rely on
lecturers to teach the electives, service courses, and GE courses for the time being.
The senior faculty member started as an Assistant Professor in 2002. The next search that resulted in
hiring an Asst. Prof. for the ABM program was in 2016. Fourteen years passed without the injection of
new ideas, methods, approaches, etc. that occurs when a new Asst. Prof. joins a program. During this
13‐year period, all of the tenured faculty who were working in 2002 either retired or passed away. We
had a search for an Asst. Prof. in 2017. Some good candidates applied, and we made an offer to a new
70 | P a g e
Ph.D. graduate. The offer was accepted, but the candidate subsequently withdrew. Because several
months had elapsed since the search, we could not make another offer so we did not add an Asst. Prof.
As of the time of this writing, we still have two tenure/tenure‐track faculty members.
Retirement projections
At some point and for some reason, every faculty member will vacate his/her position. Managers can
make retirement projections, but of course, any faculty member can leave at any time. Reasons include
getting another position, as well as health issues/accidents. Such contingencies aside, the Department
Chair (Dr. Phillips) probably has up to 10 more years until retirement. Dr. Archambault, an Assistant
Professor, is in the middle of his career. Assuming he stays, he could be a contributor to the department
and college for (plus or minus) two decades.
Plans for hiring new faculty
As mentioned above, Agribusiness & Food Industry Management covers:
accounting
agricultural policy
business economics
finance
international agricultural development
management
marketing.
No department can be all things to all people, but to have a viable program we need to have a specialist
in five of the seven areas. Ideally, each of the five would have a second area of interest to allow them to
collaborate with other program faculty. The implication is that we should have at least five
tenure/tenure‐track faculty members to ensure 1) students of varying interests are educated and
advised appropriately, and 2) a workable cadre of scholars is on hand to create a vibrant, sustainable
center of intellectual activity.
We are currently searching for an Asst. Prof. of Agribusiness. It is our hope that we can make an offer to
two candidates, because of the unsuccessful Asst. Prof. search last year.
Trends in numbers of faculty by gender and ethnicity
At the beginning of the period of review, the ABM program had one male tenured faculty member. Since
fall, 2016, we had two male tenure/tenure‐track faculty members. To the best of our knowledge, neither
of these faculty members identifies as an under‐represented minority. Two people cannot constitute a
trend, however.
Cal Poly Pomona has a goal that the faculty should match the student body in terms of gender, ethnicity,
etc. The university has 43% Hispanic students, followed by 22% Asian students. The Huntley College of
Agriculture has students with a similar ethnic composition. The students of the university are 54% male,
but the students of the Huntley College of Agriculture are 76% female. About 7% of Cal Poly Pomona
students are international students. The faculty, however, is much more international. The faculty of the
Huntley College of Agriculture, for example, are 30% international. Our search process follows best
practices to attract a large and diverse pool of applicants. We intentionally seek diversity and inclusion.
71 | P a g e
5.3. Library Resources
The University Library supports student learning through a wide variety of services. The Reference and
Instruction Department provides assistance to students in accessing the Library's rich information
resources and help students develop information skills that not only serve their immediate research
needs but also prepare them for graduate studies, careers, and lifelong learning. Librarians use a variety
of methods, including course‐integrated library instruction, special workshops, personal assistance in‐
person or via email, chat, phone, or by appointment, instructional guides, tutorials, and a FAQ.
The Circulation Desk is located on the 2nd floor of the Library and is open all hours that the Library is
open. Library staff offer assistance in tracking down missing materials, placing holds on materials
checked out to another borrower, renewing your materials, paying fees, and updating patron records.
Other services include checking out Course Reserve materials, Document Delivery, and Hold requests
items.
The Agriculture and Science Subject Librarian, who is a temporary librarian with a 0.8 time base, works
with the faculty and students of the Agribusiness and Food Industry Management Program. Below are
some of the resources used by the librarian to support this program.
Select Journal titles
The Library provides program‐supporting subscription access to the following key journals:
• Agribusiness: An International Journal
• Agricultural Economics
• Agricultural Finance Review
• American Journal of Agricultural Economics
• Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
• Food Policy
• International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
• Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
• Journal of Agricultural Economics
• Journal of Food Distribution Research
Databases
Here are some key databases used for Agribusiness and Food Industry Management:
• ABI/INFORM Complete
• AGRICOLA
• Biological/Agricultural Index
• Business Source Premier
• Web of Science Core Collection
Other useful databases can be viewed here: http://libguides.library.cpp.edu/az.php?s=60013
Reference and Instruction Statistics
Librarians and library staff assisted students and faculty with research questions related to Agriculture
during the period under review.
72 | P a g e
• 2013 – 44 questions
• 2014 – 46 questions
• 2015 – 66 questions
• 2016 – 67 questions
• 2017 – 95 questions
• 2018 – 52 questions
The librarian provided instruction to the Agribusiness and Food Industry Management program in the
following ways:
• 2013 – No instruction data
• 2014 – 9 instruction sessions
• 2015 – 7 instruction sessions
• 2016 – 12 instruction sessions
• 2017 – 12 instruction sessions
• 2018 – 1 instruction session, and 1 support meeting with ABM faculty group
(Note: Library instruction was primarily for AG 100, a course required during the period of review for all
College of Agriculture majors.)
Library Research Tutorials Usage by the College of Agriculture:
• 2013 – No data
• 2014 – 90 users
• 2015 – 160 users
• 2016 – 132 users
• 2017 – 196 users
• 2018 – 132 users
5.4. Additional Resources
(a) Staff The Administrative Support Coordinator (ASC) for the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department is Ms. Jenifer Cazares. She supports the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program in several ways. She schedules the classes for the ABM program and the Agricultural Science (AGS) program. She also schedules the Agriculture (All College) courses, with an AG prefix. These classes are mostly GE classes but include the graduate classes and other classes in the Huntley College of Agriculture. Ms. Cazares performs a number of other essential administrative functions. This includes tracking and planning expenditures of the department accounts, organizing events like the ABM Spring Banquet, completing travel reimbursement forms, organizing the awarding of scholarships, as well as supporting searches in various ways. Ms. Cazares is doing a wonderful job.
(b) Operating Budget
73 | P a g e
The Huntley College of Agriculture has not explicitly assigned the ABM program an operating budget. Instead, they provide feedback on budget matters relating to the entire college during our regular College Leadership Team (CLT) meetings. The focus of Cal Poly Pomona, like other CSU campuses, is teaching undergraduates. In such enterprises, the bulk of the budget goes to paying faculty and staff. During the period of review, the Huntley College of Agriculture has not limited the funding to hire new lecturers. Likewise, the department has been able to set the rate of pay for new lecturers. The Huntley College of Agriculture provides a small amount of State funds annually to departments for supplies and miscellaneous. The amount provided for AY 18‐19 was $5,346. We use this funding for paper, office supplies including toner cartridges for printers, and the like. This amount has been adequate until now. The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management ‐ Ag Science Department also has a discretionary account with the Cal Poly Pomona Foundation (i.e., ‘the Foundation.’) Foundation funding is useful because it can sometimes cover goods/services that are prohibited under State funding rules. We use our Foundation discretionary account to cover meals for our department meetings and other odds and ends. The balance in our Foundation discretionary account was $3,431 on May 9, 2018. The Huntley College of Agriculture generally provides funding for faculty to make presentations at conferences and meetings of professional associations. It has also provided funding for students to travel to conferences to participate in intercollegiate competitions. The Huntley College of Agriculture has treated the ABM program well in terms of funding. Cal Poly Pomona students pay for summer classes at a higher rate than for classes during the AY. Some of this funding flowed back to departments in the form of Summer UE funding during the period of review. (We received notification that this flow of funding will not continue, however.) Summer UE funding has been used to purchase a number of valuable and important things for the ABM program. For example, we purchased a computer cart and filled it with laptop computers. We have used this the computer cart to help students register during orientations and to assist instruction in ABM 3110, Applied Economics for Agribusiness. c) Space and Facilities This section addresses space and facilities available to the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program. We are a business‐ or social science‐oriented discipline. As such, we do not have a need for facilities to grow plants, raise animals, conduct labs, etc. Presently, all tenure/tenure‐track faculty in the department have an individual office. There will be a need for additional offices as new tenure‐track faculty join the program, however. Specifically, we will likely need one more office (and possibly two more offices) in fall, 2019. Lecturers have shared offices. All of the ABM lecturers currently have an office. Except for three lecturers who also teach for other Cal Poly Pomona departments, all ABM lecturers have an office in Building #2 (Agriculture). This is fortunate because most of the ABM classes are in Building #2. It is handy for the instructors to teach in the same building as their office. It is also handy for the students to be able to visit their instructors during office hours in the same building as their classes. Three ABM courses are computer‐intensive. Specifically, they are ABM 2240 – Accounting for Agribusiness, ABM 3260 – Financial Analysis for Agribusiness, and ABM 3750 – Data Management for Agribusiness. The instructors teach these classes to students who are sitting in front of a PC. Students
74 | P a g e
can follow the instructor’s tasks on the screen at the front of the room and do the same thing at the same time. There is one computer lab in Building #2. The instructors of the computer‐intensive courses are happy teaching in the computer lab and prefer that. This computer lab is used as a general computer study space for students (especially those in the Huntley College of Agriculture) as well as classes that require computer‐assisted learning. The Huntley College of Agriculture has placed a priority on keeping the Building #2 computer lab available to students during regular business hours, as much as possible, since many students have limited incomes and may not have access to computers/printers in their homes. We have been scheduling a limited number of ABM classes in the Building #2 computer lab for at least 10 years, however. d) Computing resources In accordance with Cal Poly Pomona policy, each faculty member receives a laptop computer to use for teaching and research. Computers are replaced with updated models every three years. Cal Poly Pomona also provides printers for faculty to use. The department Administrative Support Coordinator also has a laptop and a printer. Cal Poly Pomona also has an Information and Instructional Technology Department that keeps our networks running and provides assistance with computer issues. The ABM faculty has been satisfied with this aspect of computer resources.
e) Scholarships, brochures, websites, other efforts to support recruitment and retention, External funding – contracts, grants, gifts, etc.
Scholarships brochures, websites, other efforts to support recruitment and retention
The ABM program takes pride in providing scholarships to students. For example, in spring 2018, we awarded 13 scholarships worth $10,900 to 12 different students. We announce scholarships and distribute certificates to student recipients at the annual ABM Banquet. We invite donors to the banquet and students are encouraged to bring family members. This is a great opportunity to build the connection between students, family members, donors, and the ABM program. The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department has two endowed scholarships with the Foundation. They are the Cabacungan Scholarship Endowment and the White Scholarship Endowment, both of which are named after former professors in the ABM program. The California Community Foundation also has an endowment called the Enos Spencer Reid Scholarship Endowment that provides scholarship funding for students in the ABM program. The ABM program had a brochure to support recruitment and retention. This document needs to be updated, however, to reflect semester conversion and other updates, including personnel. The Huntley College of Agriculture has launched an initiative to create a new one‐page brochure for each department. The goal is to complete these brochures by the end of spring 2019. We have one other paper tool for recruitment and retention. Each undergraduate program has an 8.5” * 11” curriculum sheet. Because in the Huntley College of Agriculture, these sheets are on green paper, we refer to them as green sheets. They are important for recruitment and retention. They show potential students what will be required of them to earn a degree. Green sheets also serve as an advising tool for existing students. Most students carry a copy of the green sheet from the year they started, and refer to it each semester as they register for classes. Some check the classes off the sheet as they take the classes. The Agribusiness & Food Industry Management – Agricultural Science Department has a website https://www.cpp.edu/~agri/departments/abm.shtml. On the department website is a brief description
75 | P a g e
of the ABM program. The website also features a recruitment video we recently completed for the ABM program. The video is also available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi1LLZrNKDU. As mentioned above, the Huntley College of Agriculture holds a recruiting event each year in the spring.
It is a one‐day open house event called Poly View scheduled on a Saturday. The college invites fall
applicants, their parents, and prospective students, to visit campus, meet our faculty and students, and
learn about our programs and facilities.
During Poly View, the ABM program has a classroom to display posters and other material related to the program. One or more faculty members is present to greet the potential students and answer any questions they may have. Several representatives from the ABM Club and scholarship winners from the previous spring also attend. They answer questions and generally support the program and the event. A secondary goal of the ABM program efforts for Poly View is to make the ABM students who participate feel more connected to the program. In this way, it serves as a retention tool as well as a recruitment tool. The ABM Club is a major retention tool. It is open to all majors. A large majority of the members are ABM students, however. A major effort/aspect of the ABM Club is the field trips they go on each year. These consist of overnight trips as well as day trips. During the field trips, students tour various facilities related to agribusiness and food industry management. They also have the opportunity to meet industry professionals, network, and develop their soft skills. Recently, the ABM Club has been implementing many guest speaker events. The guest speakers are often alumni of the ABM program. Sometimes, they are industry professionals that are interested in education and more specifically, the ABM students and program. During the visits of guest speakers, students who attend get to ask questions. They also get to practice their soft skills, e.g., introducing themselves and asking the speaker for a business card. The ABM program regularly participates in intercollegiate competitions related to agribusiness and food industry management. In recent years, we have taken teams to the Food Marketing Challenge at the annual Food Distribution Research Society (FDRS) Conference and the National Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) business and marketing plan competition. The NAMA competition is held annually at the spring NAMA Conference. Part of the NAMA Conference is a trade show. The trade show gives the students an opportunity to develop soft skills, network, and learn about potential employers. Our students also get to meet judges, who are industry professionals; competitors from other universities; and faculty advisors from other universities. Students get a chance to practice business travel as well. The competitions generally benefit students by giving them the chance to work in a team on an extended project that simulates a job assignment. The learn to communicate orally and in writing, as well as how to work cooperatively on a joint task. By working with their team, they get to know their peers on a deeper level, and become more connected to the program. The intercollegiate competitions are a major retention tool of the ABM program. The following information is excerpted from section 4.1 Enrollment. “The Huntley College of Agriculture has an infrastructure for recruitment and retention. Rhonda Ostrowski is the college’s Recruitment and Retention Coordinator. She has a staff member to support her recruitment and retention efforts. Her office is in charge of two important student programs related to recruitment and retention. In terms of recruitment, Ms. Ostrowski manages the Ag Ambassadors program. This is a group of students who are selected based on their leadership potential. They support the Huntley College of Agriculture in a number of ways. This includes visiting area high schools with agricultural programs and making presentations to the high school students. The Ag Ambassadors also run Ag Beautification Days, three times each year. During the Ag Beautification Days, representatives of
76 | P a g e
each club assist the college by cleaning, painting, or otherwise putting into order a designated facility of the college. Ag Beautification Days help to connect students to their clubs and to the college, thus serving as retention events. Currently, one ABM student is an Ag Ambassador. Another important student program of Ms. Ostrowski’s office is the Peer Advisor program. Peer Advisors provide support for retention. There is a selection process for Peer Advisors each spring. Peer Advisors hold regular office hours to assist students with any issues they may be having. This includes, but is not limited to, providing assistance with assignments, study skills, and offering opinions regarding how to navigate their respective degree programs. Peer Advisors also provide valuable assistance with orientations of first‐time freshmen and transfer students. It is very helpful to have students who have actually gone through the registration process and taken classes present when new students are registering for the first time. Currently, one ABM student is a Peer Advisor. Ms. Ostrowski’s office is also responsible for Ag Career Day, a retention tool for students in the Huntley College of Agriculture. One day each spring, representatives of a number of agricultural employers visits campus. They set up tables and greet students in the Bronco Student Center. The goal of the employer representatives is to promote their respective companies/organizations and specifically, to recruit interns and permanent employees. Students benefit by practicing their soft skills and possibly obtaining an internship or a job. Events like Ag Career Day connect students to the Huntley College of Agriculture.” The ABM program has had only limited grant and contract funding during the period of review. Dr. Archambault was the P.I. on a no‐cost extension of a USDA Specialty Crop Marketing grant for $85,299. Going forward, Dr. Phillips is Co‐P.I. on a CDFA Healthy Soils Initiative grant that started in 2018. The ABM program usually receives a few gifts annually. These gifts have tended to be small, generally, <$1,000 each.
77 | P a g e
Section 6. Suggested Action Plan
Short term
1. Hire more tenure‐track faculty
The ABM program has two tenure/tenure‐track faculty members. As indicated in the faculty workload
section above, the percentage of classes taught by tenure/tenure‐track faculty is far below the
university goal. We are currently doing a search for an Assistant Professor of ABM. Last year, we had a
similar search, but the candidate we selected did not join our faculty. It would be helpful, therefore, if
we could make an offer to two finalists from this batch of applicants. That way, there would be a greater
chance of positively incrementing our tenure‐track faculty.
2. Hire a Visiting Professor
The Collective Bargaining Agreement has a provision for employing Visiting Professors to teach. If we
were able to attract a qualified Visiting Professor in fall 2019 or fall 2020, we would bring additional
ideas, skills, and abilities to the ABM program.
3. Intercollegiate competitions for students
We have been sending teams to two intercollegiate competitions related to the ABM program. Those
competitions are the annual National Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) business and marketing plan
competition and the Food Distribution Research Society’s Food Marketing Challenge. In April 2018, we
received funding from the college’s Frencer Endowment to cover student travel to the NAMA
competition. We would like to continue to send teams to these competitions. We would also like to
expand our set of student competition opportunities. Prof. Katie Horvath has been in contact with the
National Grocers Association (NGA). The NGA has a competition for college students at their annual
conference. Prof. Horvath plans to take a group of students to the NGA conference this year to get an
idea of what the competition involves. If possible, we would like to take another group of students to
the 2020 NGA conference to compete. The 2020 NGA conference will also be in San Diego.
4. Increase opportunities for service learning (S‐designation for classes)
ABM faculty have an idea to submit an application for an S‐designation (service learning) for ABM 2010.
We would have to establish a relationship with a community partner, but Dr. Phillips has already met
with a candidate organization. The organization in question is Uncommon Good, in Claremont,
California. Uncommon Good produces food on several urban farm plots throughout the area. They sell
half of the produce to community members through a store in their headquarters complex. They give
the rest away to needy local families. They also have a mentoring program for local children who qualify.
Their goal is to help immigrant‐ and first‐generation students get into college and complete their
degrees. They also help the students who graduate find jobs that compensate them sufficiently to pay
their student loans.
ABM faculty have also discussed turning AG 4010 into a service learning class with an S‐designation. One
faculty member, who teaches AG 4010, has offered to put time into accomplishing that. Of course,
obtaining a community partner, completing all of the required paperwork (e.g., liability, workers’
compensation, and waivers) takes a lot of time and effort. Once the students are engaged in service
78 | P a g e
learning, it takes a lot of time and effort to coordinate students’ transportation, what they are doing,
etc. It would be a good idea to reduce the class size of S‐designated classes to make up partially for the
extra time and effort required to teach a service‐learning course.
5. Increase student communication and engagement
Department faculty feel strongly about establishing robust communication links with students and
increasing student engagement.
One idea is to have a newsletter. In early 2019, department faculty published the first edition of a
newsletter for the ABM program. The purpose of the newsletter was to inform students of upcoming
events, provide advising information, and notify them of classes that they can take. We would like to
continue to publish this about twice a semester.
The department has a Blackboard organization for ABM students. We plan to increase the use of this site
to advertise internships and job openings, post advising information, etc. We plan to continue to offer
the two clubs of the program, namely, the ABM Club and the NAMA Club. Depending on student
demand and participation, we plan to expand opportunities to serve as officers of the clubs, go on field
trips, and host social events.
Long term
1. Hire more tenure‐track faculty
This goal appears above as a short‐term goal. It should also be a long‐term priority. In fall 2002, there
were five fulltime, tenure/tenure‐track faculty in the ABM program (Hughes, Klein, Parker, Phillips, and
Weidman). There was also a .33 FERP faculty (Cabacungan) in fall 2002. This group dwindled, through
retirements and death. It reached a point when Dr. Phillips was the only tenure/tenure‐track faculty
member for ABM. We subsequently added Dr. Archambault, so now there are two tenure/tenure‐track
ABM faculty. In order to become a healthy, sustainable program, there should be five tenure/tenure‐
track ABM faculty. We need regular searches to increase the number of five tenure/tenure‐track ABM
faculty and to keep up with retirements and faculty leaving under other circumstances.
2. Recruit and establish an industry advisory board
The program plans to establish an industry advisory board. Members will include alumni and other
industry representatives who are interested in our program.
The primary purpose of the industry advisory board will be development (i.e., fundraising). There will be
other benefits, though. These include providing internships and permanent jobs to our students,
advising the program regarding curriculum, serving as guest speakers, providing mentorship and job‐
shadowing for our students, participating in on‐campus events including mock interviews and panel
discussions, hosting field trips for student groups, etc.
3. Establish a focus group research facility and a center for disciplinary research and outreach
A long‐term goal of the ABM program is to establish a focus group research facility. When our new
Department Chair started in January, 2018, he expressed his goals/priorities. Regarding facilities, his goal
was to establish a focus group research facility (also known as a learning lab). There would be a number
of advantages to having such a facility. It would benefit research, of course, but also teaching and
outreach. Seton Hall University created a focus group research facility, and called it an unqualified
79 | P a g e
success (Pirog, et al, 2015). Such a facility would cost ~$100,000. A priority of the program is to seek
donor and grant support. There is an issue regarding where such a focus group research facility (a.k.a.
learning lab) would be located.
Other research equipment could also be part of the learning lab. In particular, ABM faculty are
interested in computer workstations equipped with cameras to track eye movement. Such equipment is
used to do consumer research on how long consumers look at various elements of advertisements. We
would like to purchase six workstations at $10,000 per workstation. This is an example of enhancing
computer resources. We are considering other enhancements as well.
More broadly, we plan to pursue gifts and/or grants to establish a center related to the mission and
expertise of the Agribusiness & Food Industry Management (ABM) program. A model for the new center
would be The Center for Food and Agricultural Business (http://agribusiness.purdue.edu/) in the
Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University.
Reference
Pirog, Stephen, Elven Riley, Ann Mayo, and Adam Warner. (2015). Building a Marketing Focus Group
Facility: What Do You Need and What Will It Cost? Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Vol.
15(4).
80 | P a g e
Section 7. External Review
To be completed by the external reviewers using a specific document and providing a report. Office
of Academic Programs will place the document into the file.
81 | P a g e
Section 8. Department and Dean’s Post Review
A memorandum of understanding with an action plan in response to the External Review and Self‐Study.
To be completed by the department and dean using a specific form after the external review has been
completed. (Department and College)
Office of Academic Programs will place the document into the file.
82 | P a g e
Section 9. Faculty Participation
All department faculty responsible for the program should certify that they have been involved in the
review process and have reviewed the full academic program review report. A copy of this
certification must accompany the program review report. (Department)
83 | P a g e
Appendix A – Past Recommendation
On hold pending location of the most recent self-study.
84 | P a g e
Appendix B – Curricula for other Institutions
Agribusiness and Food Industry Management B.S.: 120 units
ABM Curriculum Sheet Units
ABM CORE (63 units)
AG 1010 Ag in the Modern World 3 AG 2010 Global Resources for Food 3 AG 1280 Computer Applications for Agriculture 3 ABM 2010 Agribusiness Organizations and Careers 3 ABM 2240 Accounting for Agribusiness I 3 ABM 2260 Accounting for Agribusiness II 3 ABM 3040 Food and Agribusiness Marketing 3 ABM 3060 Retailing and Wholesaling of Agribusiness Products 3 ABM 3090 Promotion and Advertising for Agribusiness 3 ABM 3100 Sales and Professional Development for Agribusiness 3 ABM 3110 Applied Economics for Agribusiness 3 ABM 3130 Food and Agriculture Policy 3 ABM 3260 Financial Analysis for Agribusiness 3 ABM 3750 Data Management for Agribusiness 3 ABM 4020 Agribusiness Personnel Management 3 ABM 4130 Agricultural Law and Compliance 3 AG 4640 Development of Leadership Skills in Agriculture 3 ABM 4900 Agribusiness Senior Feasibility Study 3
AG 4010 Ethical Issues in Food, Agriculture and Apparel (C-4) 3 STA 1200 Statistics with Applications (B-4) 3 EC 2201 Principles of Microeconomics (D-3) 3
TOTAL UNITS 63
CAREER TRACK ELECTIVES (18 Units)
Student will determine electives upon consultation with advisor.
Total 18
GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
Area A. Communication and Critical Thinking (9 semester units)
1. Oral Communication (3 units)
2. Written Communication (3 units)
3. Critical Thinking (3 units)
Area B. Scientific Inquiry and Quantitative Reasoning (12 semester units)
85 | P a g e
1. Physical Sciences (3 units)
2. Life Sciences (3 units)
3. Laboratory Activity (0 units)
4. Quantitative Reasoning (3 units) (STA 1200 required)
5. Science and Technology Synthesis (3 units)
Area C. Arts and Humanities (12 semester units)
1. Visual and Performing Arts (3 units)
2. Philosophy and Civilization (3 units)
3. Literature and Foreign Language (3 units)
4. Arts and Humanities Synthesis (upper division, 3 semester units) (AG 4010 required)
Area D. Social Sciences (12 semester units)
1. U.S. History and American Ideals (3 units)
2. U.S. Constitution and California Government (3 units)
3. The Social Sciences: Principles, Methodologies, Value Systems, and Ethics (3 units) (EC 2201 required)
4. Social Science Synthesis (3 units)
Area E. Lifelong Understanding and Self-Development (3 units)
Total 48
TOTAL UNIT COUNT:
Core Courses –63
GE Required - 48
Double Counted GE – 9
Directed Electives - 18
Total 120
86 | P a g e
California State University – Chico
The Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Business
Total Course Requirements for the Bachelor's Degree: 120 units
See Bachelor's Degree Requirements in the University Catalog for complete details on general
degree requirements. A minimum of 39 units, including those required for the major, must be
upper division.
A suggested Major Academic Plan (MAP) has been prepared to help students meet all
graduation requirements within four years. You can view MAPs on the Degree MAPs page in the
University Catalog or you can request a plan from your major advisor.
General Education Pathway Requirements: 48 units
See General Education in the University Catalog and the Class Schedule for the most current
information on General Education Pathway Requirements and course offerings.
This major has approved GE modification(s). See below for information on how to apply these
modification(s).
ANSC 101 is an approved major course substitution for Life Sciences (B2).
AGRI 482W is an approved major course substitution for Upper‐Division Social Sciences.
Diversity Course Requirements: 6 units
See Diversity Requirements in the University Catalog. Most courses taken to satisfy these
requirements may also apply to General Education.
Upper‐Division Writing Requirement:
Writing across the Curriculum (Executive Memorandum 17‐009) is a graduation requirement
and may be demonstrated through satisfactory completion of four Writing (W) courses, two of
which are designated by the major department. See Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning and
Writing Requirements in the University Catalog for more details on the four courses. The first
of the major designated Writing (W) courses is listed below.
87 | P a g e
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ABUS 451W
Agricultural Policy (W) 3.0 FS W
Prerequisites: ABUS 301, ECON 102.
The second major‐designated Writing course is the Graduation Writing Assessment
Requirement (GW) (Executive Order 665). Students must earn a C‐ or higher to receive GW
credit. The GE Written Communication (A2) requirement must be completed before a student is
permitted to register for a GW course.
Grading Requirement:
All courses taken to fulfill major course requirements must be taken for a letter grade except
those courses specified by the department as Credit/No Credit grading only.
Course Requirements for the Major: 83 units
Completion of the following courses, or their approved transfer equivalents, is required of all
candidates for this degree.
Lower‐Division Requirements: 38 units
8 courses required:
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ABUS 101 Introduction to Agricultural Business
and Economics 3.0 FS GE
ABUS 231 Computer Applications in Agriculture 3.0 FS
ABUS 261 Farm Accounting 3.0 FS
ABUS 262 Management Accounting for Agriculture 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 261 or ACCT 201.
AGRI 180 The University Experience 1.0 FS
BLAW 203 Introduction to Business Law 3.0 FS
Prerequisite: At least sophomore standing.
CHEM 107 General Chemistry for Applied Sciences 4.0 FS GE
88 | P a g e
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
Prerequisites: Completion of ELM requirement, Intermediate Algebra.
ECON 102 Principles of Macroeconomic Analysis 3.0 FS GE
MATH 105 Statistics 3.0 FS GE
Prerequisites: Completion of ELM requirement.
2 courses selected from:
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ANSC 101 Introduction to Animal Science 3.0 FS
PSSC 101 Introduction to Plant Science 3.0 FS GE
PSSC 250 Introduction to Soil Science 3.0 FA
Prerequisites: CHEM 107 or CHEM 111.
6 units selected from:
Any lower‐division Agricultural Business (ABUS), Agricultural Engineering Technology (AGET),
Animal Science (ANSC), Plant and Soil Science (PSSC), or Agriculture (AGRI) course.
Upper‐Division Requirements: 45 units
9 courses required:
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ABUS 301 Agricultural Production Economics and
Quantitative Analysis 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 101 or ECON 103.
ABUS 311 Agricultural Markets and Pricing 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 101.
ABUS 321 Agribusiness Management 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 101 or equivalent.
89 | P a g e
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ABUS 415 Agricultural Price Analysis 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 301 and MATH 105.
ABUS 421 Advanced Agribusiness Management 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 301, ABUS 321, senior standing.
ABUS 451W
Agricultural Policy (W) 3.0 FS W
Prerequisites: ABUS 301, ECON 102.
ABUS 465 Agricultural Finance 3.0 FS
Prerequisites: ABUS 101 and ABUS 261.
AGRI 331 Agricultural Ecology
3.0 FS
Prerequisites: Completion of lower-division core or faculty permission.
AGRI 482W
Agricultural Issues (W) 3.0 FS GW W
Prerequisites: ENGL 130 or JOUR 130 (or equivalent) with a grade of C- or higher, senior standing or instructor permission.
1 course selected from:
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
ABUS 389 Internship in Agribusiness 1.0 -3.0
SMF
Prerequisites: Permission of Internship Coordinator.
AGET 389 Internship in Agricultural Engineering
Technology
1.0 -3.0
SMF
Prerequisites: Prior approval of academic goals by the Internship Coordinator.
ANSC 389 Internship in Animal Science 1.0 -3.0
SMF
Prerequisites: Prior approval of academic goals by the Internship Coordinator.
90 | P a g e
SUBJ NUM
Title Sustainable Units Semester Offered
Course Flags
PSSC 389 Internship in Plant and Soil Science 1.0 -6.0
FS
Prerequisites: Junior standing, faculty permission.
3 units of internship are required.
3 units selected from:
Any upper‐division production course from Animal Science (ANSC), Agricultural Engineering
Technology (AGET), or Plant and Soil Science (PSSC). These courses are limited to those
offerings that have either ANSC 101, PSSC 101, or PSSC 250 as a prerequisite.
12 units selected from:
Any upper‐division College of Agriculture courses selected with approval of your advisor. Nine
of the 12 units should be Agricultural Business courses.
Electives Requirement:
To complete the total units required for the bachelor's degree, select additional elective
courses from the total University offerings. You should consult with an advisor regarding the
selection of courses which will provide breadth to your University experience and possibly apply
to a supportive second major or minor.
Students may double count only one approved upper‐division General Education Pathway
course with a required option elective.
91 | P a g e
Consumer
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS MAJOR College of Agricultural,
English Comp Level I (a grade of "C" or better is required in English Comp Level I): ENGL
111G, Rhetoric and Composition ; ENGL111H, Rhetoric and Composition, Honors ; ENGL
111M, Rhetoric/Composition Multiling(Int'l Students only)
4
English Comp Level II ‐‐ Select 1 from: ENGL 203G, Business & Professional
Communication ; ENGL 211G, Writing in the Humanities & Social Sciences ; ENGL 218G,
Technical & Scientific Communication ; ENGL 311G, Adv Composition ; OR ENGL 318G, Adv
Tech and Professional Communication
3
Oral Communication ‐‐ Select 1 from: COMM 253G, Public Speaking ; COMM 265G,
Principles of Human Communication ; AXED 201G, Effective Leadership and Comm in
Agricultural Org.; OR HON 265G, Principles of Human Comm ‐ Honors
3
AREA II: MATHEMATICS2 Total Hours: 3
MATH 142G, Calculus for The Biological and Mgmt Sciences (prereq: C or better in MATH 121)
3
AREA III: LABORATORY SCIENCE ‐ (must include a LAB)
Select TWO laboratory science courses from AREA III list
Total Hrs: 8
4
4
AREA IV: SOCIAL/BEHAVIORIAL SCIENCES3 ‐ (A minimum of 15 combined credits from AREAS IV and V are required, with at least 9
credits in one of the two areas)
(ECON 251G and ECON 252G satisfy both AREA IV and Major requirements) Total Hrs: 6‐9
ECON 251G, Principles of Macroeconomcs (Prereq: Satisfy NMSU Math Basic Skills Rqmt) 3
ECON 252G, Principles of Microeconomics (Prereq: Satisfy NMSU Math Basic Skills Rqmt) 3
3
AREA V: HUMANITIES and FINE ARTS3 ‐ (A minimum of 15 combined credits from AREAS IV and V are required, with at least 9 credits in
one of the two areas)
Select TWO to THREE courses from AREA V list Total Hrs: 6‐9
6‐9
92 | P a g e
42 HRS
2017-18 DEGREE PLAN
Department of Agricultural Economics & Agricultural Business
9.1.1. Not required of all students. Not counted as degree credits towards a student's graduation
CCDE 105N 4 cr CCDE 110N 4 cr CCDM 103M 4 cr CCDM
114N 4 cr
NM GENERAL EDUCATION COMMON CORE AREA 1 CR GRADE
S
SEMESTER
ENROLLED COMPLETED APPROVED SUB/TR CR?
Section 10
AREA I: COMMUNICATIONS Total Hrs: 10 10/19/2017 Any item in this Degree Plan is subject to modification at any time.
VIEWING A WIDER WORLD REQUIREMENT ‐ Take 6 credits at the 300 or 400 level in G.E. courses from TWO separate colleges. One of
the two courses must be in a college other than your own. The other course: 1) MUST be in a different department from your major
department, 2) MUST NOT be crosslisted with a course in your home department, and 3) CANNOT be counted as one of the
requirements for the student's major.
Total Hrs: 6
3
3
REVIEW COURSES
93 | P a g e
Section 10.1 AEAB Major Degree Plan ‐ 2017‐18 Catalog Page ‐2‐
DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CR GRADE SEMESTER COMPLETED? APPROVED SUB/TRCR
GENERAL BUSINESS 15 HOURS
ACCT 221, Financial Accounting 3
ACCT 222, Management Accounting 3
MGT 300+ ‐‐Select 1 course from: MGT 309, Human Behavior & Organizations; MGT 332, Human Resources Management; OR MGT 361, Small Business Management (Note: students cannot earn credit for BOTH MGT 309 and MGT 315V)
3
FIN 341, Financial Analysis and Markets (prereqs: ACCT 221, ECON 251G, 252G, MATH 121G or 230, and A ST/STAT 251G or A ST 311) 3
BLAW 316, Legal Environment of Business 3
ECONOMIC THEORY 6 HOURS
ECON 251G, Principles of Macroeconomics (prereq: Satisfy NMSU Basic Skills Rqmt) ‐ [hrs are counted in Area IV]
ECON 252G, Principles of Microeconomics (prereq: Satisfy NMSU Basic Skills Rqmt) ‐ [hrs are counted in Area IV]
Select 1 from3: AG E 340, Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets OR ECON 312, Intermediate Microeconomic Theory (prereq: ECON 252G or equivalent) ‐‐ ECON 312 is strongly advised for students going to graduate school majoring in agricultural economics
3
Select 1 from3: ECON 304, Money and Banking (prereq: ECON 251G or equivalent or consent of intructor) OR ECON 311 Intermediate
Macroeconomic Theory (prereq: ECON 251G or equivalent) ‐‐ ECON 311 is strongly advised for students going to graduate school majoring in agricultural economics
3
APPLIED ECONOMICS and BUSINESS 25 HOURS
AG E 100 (fa/sp), Introduction to Food and Agribusiness Management 3
AG E 1014 (fa), Careers in Food and Agribusiness Management ‐ Required of ALL Freshmen 1
ACES 1114 Freshmen Orientation (fa), AND ACES 1214 Financial Fitness (fa) ‐ Required of ALL Freshmen 2
AG E 236, Principles of Food and Agribusiness Management 3
AG E/MKTG 305 (fa/sp), Marketing Food and Agricultural Products (prereq: ECON 201G or 252G) 3
AG E 400 (fa/sp), Seminar (prereq: SENIOR standing, AEAB or NREP majors only) 1
AG E 425 (fa), Food and Agribusiness Financial Management (prereqs: ECON 252G and ACCT 221) 3
AG E 445V (fa), Agricultural Policy prereqs: ECON 251G and 252G) 3
AG E 385 (fa), Applied Production Economics (prereq: ECON 252G, MATH 142G, and A ST 311 or A ST/STAT 251G) 3
AG E 456 (sp), Case Studies in Food and Agribusiness Management (prereq: SR standing) 3
QUANTITATIVE SKILLS 18 HOURS
94 | P a g e
REQUIRED SPECIALITY AREA CR GRADE SEMESTER COMPLETED? APPROVED SUB/TRCR
REQUIRED SPECIALTY Select and complete 2 required courses from 1 Specialty Area 6 HOURS
Natural
Resources
AG E 314, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law and either AGE/ECON 337V(fa), Natr'l Res Economics (prereq:
ECON 201 or 252G) OR AG E/ECON 384V(sp), Water Res Economics (prereq: AG E 100 or ECON 252G)
6
Finance AG E/FIN 311(sp), Financial Futures Markets ; and either AG E/FIN 470(fa), Real Estate Appraisal (prereq: JR or
above standing); OR AG E/ANSC 325, Food and Agribusiness Finance and Planning (prereq: AG E 250 or equivalent)
6
Marketing
AG E/MKTG 451(fa), Food/Agribusiness Mkt Assessment & Research (prereq: AG E/MKTG 305); and AG E 313, Food
and Agricultural Sales (prereq: Junior of above standing)
6
FREE ELECTIVES (Free electives toward the minimum 120 hours for graduation) 8 HOURS
FREE ELECTIVE 3
FREE ELECTIVE 3
FREE ELECTIVE 2
78
1The New Mexico Common Core courses are guaranteed to transfer in fulfillment of General Education requirements at other
New Mexico institutions.
2MATH 142G is a departmental requirement and also meets the AREA II requirement; Some students will need to complete
the prerequisites of MATH 120 and/or MATH 121 with a "C" or better before taking MATH 142G UNLESS they place out of
one or both via ACT/GPA scores or MPE placement. PLACEMENT in or TR CR of MATH 190, 191, 192, OR 291 will take care
of the MATH 142G requirement. 3Students interested in graduate degrees should consult with their advisor early in their undergraduate program regarding prequisites that may be required for entry into a graduate program as some undergraduate courses will require grades of "B" or better for graduate admission.
4ACES 111/121 is in mini‐semester sessions (111 from Aug. to mid‐Oct. and 121 from mid‐Oct. to Dec.); AG E 101 is a mini‐
semester course (Aug. to mid‐Oct.).
NOTE: AG E 200, Special Topics ‐ max of 4 hrs per semester with no more than 9 credits toward degree; AG E 300, Internship
‐ max of 4 hrs per semester with no more than 6 credits toward degree; AG E 420, Special Problems ‐ max of 3 hrs per
semester with nore more than 6 credits toward degree (this also includes ANY AG E 420 carrying a subtitle). *Student will
lose credits in excess of the maximum hours allowed.
FOOTNOTES:
MATH 120, Intermediate Algebra (C or better req'd)
MATH 121G, College Algebra (C or better req'd; Prereqs: MATH 120 w/C or better)
AG E 250 (fa/sp), Life with Microcomputers
AG E 342 (sp), Economic Analysis of Food and Agribusiness (prereq: ECON 251G and ECON 252G)
AG E 450 (fa/sp), Spreadsheet Applications in Food and Agriculture (prereq: AG E 250 or instructor consent; Cannot receive credit for both AG E 450 d AEEC 550)
94 | P a g e
Appendix C – Student Evaluation Forms
95 | P a g e
Appendix D – Faculty Resumes
Jon C. Phillips
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
3801 West Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768
E‐mail: [email protected]
Current Employment
CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA ‐ AGRIBUSINESS & FOOD INDUSTRY
MANAGEMENT/AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Pomona, CA
Chair, Agribusiness & Food Industry Management/Agricultural Science Department
(January, 2018 – present)
Professor (September, 2013 – present)
Associate Professor (September, 2008 – August, 2013)
Assistant Professor (September, 2002 – August, 2008)
Teaching and scholarly activities.
Education
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, MI
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Agricultural Economics, specializing in agricultural firm management, 2002. Dissertation
title: “The Production and Marketing of Differentiated Products: Implications for Agribusiness Strategy.”
Research experience during Ph.D. program:
Graduate Research Assistant (January, 1999 – May, 2002)
“Strategic Positioning for Michigan Agriculture”
Acting Project Manager (January, 1998 ‐ August 1998)
Assistant Project Manager (September, 1998 ‐ December 1998)
96 | P a g e
“Enhancing Rural Economies through Comprehensive Extension, Research, and Partnering Approaches
Using Multi‐County Clusters in Michigan with Application to National Rural Settings”
Graduate Research Assistant (January, 1997 ‐ December, 1997)
“Frozen Potato Industry Assessment and Agribusiness Strategic Planning”
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Kalamazoo, MI
Master of Arts (MA) in Economics, specializing in managerial and international economics, 1996. GPA: 3.78
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY Detroit, MI
Master of Business Administration (MBA), specializing in finance and marketing, 1990.
GPA: 4.00
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Ann Arbor, MI
Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) with distinction, 1985.
GPA: 3.55
Teaching Experience
Courses taught (full responsibility):
Undergraduate courses:
Financial Analysis for Agribusiness (five sections), Food and Agribusiness Marketing (five sections), Managing
Agribusiness Organizations (seventeen sections), Sales and Advertising Management (two sections), Accounting for
Agribusiness (thirteen sections), Seminar in Food and Agribusiness Management (six sections), Applied Economics for
Agribusiness (three sections), Special Study for Lower Division Students (thirty‐one sections), Special Study for Upper
Division Students (thirty‐two sections), Food and Agricultural Marketing Applications (two sections), Senior Seminar I
(three sections), Politics of Food and Agriculture (two sections), Internship in Food Marketing and Agribusiness
Management (four sections), Agriculture and the Modern World (twenty‐four sections), Ethical Issues in Food,
Agricultural, and Apparel Industries (ten sections), Global Resources for Food (twenty sections), Special Topics for Upper
Division Students (one section)
Teaching Experience Continued
Graduate courses:
Directed Study (five sections), Thesis Research (five sections), Master’s Degree Thesis (five sections)
97 | P a g e
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (2002‐present)
Introduction to Business (seven sections)
Oakland Community College, Auburn Hills, Michigan (1991‐1992)
Quantitative Methods
Davenport University, Lansing, Michigan (1992)
Investments, Real Estate, Mass Media, Financial Industries, and Macroeconomics
Great Lakes College, Saginaw, Michigan (1992‐1993)
Statistical Process Control Techniques for Manufacturing
Saginaw Public Schools Continuing Education Programs, Saginaw, Michigan (1991)
Teaching assistant for the following courses:
Undergraduate Level
Financial Management (four sections), Principles of Microeconomics (four sections), Principles of Macroeconomics (four
sections), Industrial Organization Economics (one section), Food Business Analysis and Strategic Planning (one section),
Agribusiness Management (two sections), Financial Management in the Food System (one section)
Michigan State University and Western Michigan University (1993‐2000)
Graduate Level
Managerial Finance, Michigan State University (1994)
Tutoring experience:
Chapter One Program, Swan Valley Schools, Saginaw, Michigan (1994‐1995)
98 | P a g e
Peer‐Reviewed Publications
Phillips, J.C., Peterson, H.C. and Porter, S.S. (2014) ‘Inventorying resources: an application to product‐oriented
agriculture,’ Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 10, No. 1. Pg.1–14.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (2007). “Strategic Marketing Decisions for Organic Agricultural Producers.”
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1. Pg. 100 – 115.
De Boom, Nathan, Jon C. Phillips, Gwen Urey. (2006). “Strategies for Dairy Farm Preservation.” Journal of the American
Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Pg. 136 – 141.
Phillips, Jon C. (2005). “An Analysis of the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.
18, Fall. Pg. 41 – 46.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (2004). “Product Differentiation and Target Marketing by Agricultural Producers.”
Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Pg. 64 – 74.
Other Publications
Smith Porter, Shannon and Jon C. Phillips (2014). “Master’s Programs in Agricultural Economics: Situation and Analysis,”
Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #14‐01. Selected Paper, Western
Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Monterrey, CA. September.
Phillips, Jon C., Shannon Carrigan, Karina Ortega, Maria Santamaria, Fatima Tamayo, and Cassie Thistle (2014). “An
Analysis of the Pet Food and Pet Treats Industry.” Selected Paper, Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on
Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Santa Clara, CA. August.
Phillips, Jon C., Flynnie Kolb, and Chelsea Bicknell (2011). “Strategic Analysis of the U.S. Quarter Horse Industry,
Emphasizing California.” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #11‐01.
Selected paper for the 2009 Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72)
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. March.
Other Publications continued
99 | P a g e
Phillips, Jon C., Adriana Ortega, Marquesa Cook, Marian Concepcion, Tina Kimmons, Kelly Ralph, Joanna Ponce, Hannah
Miller, Michelle Lam, and Sarah Baldwin (2010). “Activism and Trust: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare in the Global
Food System.” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. XLI, No. 1, pg. 91 – 95, March.
Phillips, Jon C. (2010). “Making ‘Global Resources for Food’ a Hybrid Class.” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol.
XLI, No. 1, pg. 125, March.
Phillips, Jon C. and Lauren Hays (2007). “Analyzing Resources for the Production of High‐Value Agricultural Products in
the California High Desert,” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #07 – 01.
Selected paper for the 2007 Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72)
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. June. (Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐
bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=27548&ftype=.pdf)
Hassett, Kenny, Jon C. Phillips, Katie Engler, and Judy Sun (2007). “Consumers' Knowledge about and Willingness to Use
Ethanol,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1.
Phillips, Jon C., Garrett R. Matt, April Drukin, Kimberly Campeau‐McAllister, Nicole Campeau‐
McAllister, Marco Solis, and Tenisha Gipson (2006). “Consumer Preferences for Cluster Raisins: A Focus Group
Investigation,” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #06‐01. Selected paper
for the 2006 Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las
Vegas, NV. June. (Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=25674&ftype=.pdf)
Drukin, April, Mary Kate Francesco, Jon C. Phillips, and Julie Binns (2005). “An Examination of the Competitive
Advantages of the Raisin Industries in California and Turkey,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, p.
225 – 226, March.
Campeau‐McAllister, Nicole, Kimberly Campeau‐McAllister, Jon C. Phillips, (2005) “An Assessment of the Attractiveness
of the U.S. Fresh Orange and Grapefruit Industry,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, p. 221 – 222,
March.
Phillips, Jon C. and Jolley, William (2004). “Major Factors Influencing the Competitiveness of the California Strawberry
Subsector,” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #04‐01. Selected paper for
the 2004 Western Coordinating Committee on Agribusiness Research (WCC‐72) Meeting. (Available online at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=20197&ftype=.pdf)
Other Publications continued
100 | P a g e
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (2003). “Differentiated Agricultural Products and Business Strategies for Agricultural
Producers: An Empirical Study,” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #03‐01.
(This is an unabridged version of the peer reviewed publication from 2004 listed above.)
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (2002). “Inventorying Resources: An Application to Product‐oriented Agriculture.”
Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #02‐17, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.
(Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=5464)
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (2001). “Segmentation and Differentiation of Agri‐Food Niche Markets: Examples
from the Literature ” Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #01‐05, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.
(Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=2437)
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (2001). “Demand Overview for Organic Produce.” Agricultural Economics Staff Paper
#01‐06, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. (Available online at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=2442)
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (1999). “Strategic Planning and Firm Performance: A Proposed Theoretical Model for
Small Agribusiness Firms.” Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #99‐41, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan
State University, East Lansing. (Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1691)
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Analysis of Socioeconomic Data for the Southern Tier Cluster of Michigan Counties,” Agricultural
Economics Staff Paper #98‐41, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
(Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1244)
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Analysis of Socioeconomic Data for the I‐75 Cluster of Michigan Counties,” Agricultural
Economics Staff Paper #98‐42, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. (Available
online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1259)
101 | P a g e
Other Publications continued
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Analysis of Socioeconomic Data for the Western Upper Peninsula Cluster of Michigan Counties,”
Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #98‐43, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.
(Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1252)
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Analysis of Socioeconomic Data for the Value Added Agriculture Cluster of Michigan Counties,”
Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #98‐44, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.
(Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1255)
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Globalization and the Potential for Frozen Potato Processing in Mexico,” Agricultural Economics
Staff Paper #98‐04, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. (Available online at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=1248)
Peterson, Chris, Schweikhardt, David, Masterovsky, Michael, Phillips, Jon C., and Schulz, Mary (1998). “Major Factors
Affecting Demand and Supply for the Michigan Frozen Potato Industry,” in the 1998 Potato Research Report, Dr. Richard
Chase, editor, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Peterson, Chris, Schweikhardt, David, Masterovsky, Michael, Phillips, Jon C., and Schulz, Mary (1997). “Demand and
Supply Assessment for the Michigan Frozen Potato Industry,” Agricultural Economics Staff Paper #97‐47, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. (Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐
bin/pdf view.pl?paperid=920) (This is an unabridged version of the publication listed immediately previously.)
102 | P a g e
Presentations in Academic Settings
Phillips, Jon C. and Shunto Kobayashi (2017). Effects of Various Factors on Student Persistence and Graduation. Selected
Paper Presentation, California Association for Institutional Research Conference, Concord, California, November.
Phillips, Jon C., Michelle A. Chon, Nicole Franco, Heechang Hwang, Ashley Kim, Zahira Mo Mai, Peter Ruvalcaba, and Vy
Tran (2017). Strategic Factors Affecting the California Strawberry Industry. Selected Paper (i.e., Research Update)
Presentation at the Food Distribution Research Society Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, October.
Phillips, Jon C., Shannon Carrigan, Karina Ortega, Maria Santamaria, Fatima Tamayo, and Cassie Thistle (2014). An
Analysis of the Pet Food and Pet Treats Industry. Selected Paper Presentation, Western Extension and Research Activity
#72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Santa Clara, CA, June.
Smith Porter, Shannon and Jon C. Phillips (2013). “Master’s Programs in Agricultural Economics: Situation and Analysis,”
Selected Paper Presentation, Western Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Monterrey, CA, July.
Phillips, Jon C. (2013). “Events Related to Recruiting Prospective Students and Retaining Current Students.” Presentation
as part of a panel discussion, “New Ways to Reach Students and Prospective Students,” Jon C. Phillips, Panel Organizer.
Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Phillips, Jon C. (2011). “Nevada Guard Agribusiness Development Team Training.” Presentation as part of a panel
discussion, “Framing and Delivering Agribusiness Extension/Outreach Programs,” Jon C. Phillips, Panel Organizer.
Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Rahman, Nur Raudhah and Jon C. Phillips (2011). “Examining the competitiveness of the Malaysian Halal Broiler Industry
(MHBI): An Example of the Economics of Global Competition.” Selected Paper Presentation, Western Extension and
Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Phillips, Jon C., Adriana Ortega, Marquesa Cook, Marian Concepcion, Tina Kimmons, Kelly Ralph, Joanna Ponce, Hannah
Miller, Michelle Lam, and Sarah Baldwin (2009). “Activism and Trust: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare in the Food
Supply Chain.” Selected Paper (i.e., Research Report) Presentation at the Food Distribution Research Society Conference,
Denver, Colorado, November.
Phillips, Jon C., Flynnie Kolb, and Chelsea Bicknell (2009). “Strategic Analysis of the U.S. Quarter Horse Industry.”
Selected Paper Presentation, Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72)
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
103 | P a g e
Presentations in Academic Settings, continued
Phillips, Jon C. (2008). “Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Development.” Selected paper Presentation, Greening
XVII Conference, Pomona, CA, January.
Phillips, Jon C. and Lauren Hays (2007). “Analyzing Resources for the Production of High‐Value Agricultural Products in
the California High Desert.” Selected Paper Presentation, Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness
Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Hassett, Kenny, Jon C. Phillips, Katie Engler, and Judy Sun (2006). “Consumers' Knowledge about and Willingness to Use
Ethanol,” Selected Paper (i.e., Research Update) Presentation, Food Distribution Research Society Conference, Quebec
City, Quebec, Canada, October.
Phillips, Jon C. and L. Pilar Rodriguez (2006). “Beyond Organic: An Overview of Biodynamic Agriculture with Case
Examples.” Selected paper presentation at the 2006 American Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Long Beach,
CA, July. (Available online at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=21984&ftype=.pdf)
Phillips, Jon C., Garrett R. Matt, April Drukin, Kimberly Campeau‐McAllister, Nicole Campeau‐McAllister, Marco Solis, and
Tenisha Gipson (2006). “Consumer Preferences for Cluster Raisins: A Focus Group Investigation” Selected Paper
Presentation, Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las
Vegas, NV. June.
Phillips, Jon C. (2005). “Rating the Web Sites of Land Grant Universities and State Departments of Agriculture.” Selected
paper for the 2005 American Agricultural Economics Association meeting, Providence, RI, July. (Available online at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi‐bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=16349&ftype=.pdf)
Phillips, Jon C., Kristal Clark, Alex Spitz, Nick Stratton, Anthony Rude, Galen Gonzalez, Mauricio Rios, and Russell Bassett
(2005). “The Effect of Low‐Carbohydrate Diets and Other Factors on Food Purchasing Behavior.” Selected paper for the
2005 Western Coordinating Committee on Agribusiness Research (WCC‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Drukin, April, Mary Kate Francesco, Jon C. Phillips, and Julie Binns (2004). “An Examination of the Competitive
Advantages of the Raisin Industries in California and Turkey,” Selected Paper (i.e., Research Update) Presentation at the
Food Distribution Research Society Conference, Morro Bay, California, October.
Presentations in Academic Settings, continued
104 | P a g e
Campeau‐McAllister, Nicole, Kimberly Campeau‐McAllister, Jon C. Phillips, (2004). “An Assessment of the Attractiveness
of the U.S. Fresh Orange and Grapefruit Industry,” Selected Paper (i.e., Research Update) Presentation, Food
Distribution Research Society Conference, Morro Bay, California, October.
Phillips, Jon C. and William Jolley (2004). “Major Factors Influencing the Competitiveness of the California Strawberry
Subsector,” Selected Paper Presentation, Western Coordinating Committee on Agribusiness (WCC‐72) Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada, June.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (2003). “Analysis of Strategic Marketing Decisions for Organic Agricultural Producers:
A Case Study,” Selected Paper Presentation, Western Coordinating Committee on Agribusiness (WCC‐72) Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada, June.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (2002). “Inventorying Resources: An Application to Product‐oriented Agriculture.”
Selected Paper Presentation, American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Long Beach, California, July.
Phillips, Jon C. (2000). “Michigan Potato Supply: An Analysis of Planted Acreage Data,” Selected Paper Presentation,
Western Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, July.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (2000). “Segmentation and Differentiation of Agri‐Food Niche Markets: Examples from
the Literature,” Selected Paper Presentation, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IAMA)
World Food and Agribusiness Congress, Chicago, Illinois, June.
Phillips, Jon C. (2000). “Sustainable Production: A Potential Niche Market for Agricultural Producers,” presentation at the
Michigan State Sustainable Agriculture Network’s research symposium, Michigan State University, March.
Phillips, Jon C. and Chris Peterson (1999). “Strategic Planning and Firm Performance: A Proposed Theoretical Model for
Small Agribusiness Firms,” Selected Paper Presentation, American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings,
Nashville, Tennessee, August.
Phillips, Jon C. (1998). “Let Them Eat French Fries: Globalization and the Potential for Frozen Potato Processing in
Mexico,” Selected Paper Presentation, Globalization and Its (Dis) Contents Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, April.
105 | P a g e
Presentations in Extension Settings
“U.S. Agro‐Food Systems and Policies.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the Jiangsu (China) Provincial
Agricultural Commission, Pomona, California, March, 2018.
“Modern Agricultural Management Strategies.” Seminar presentation for university and government representatives
from Anhui, China, Pomona, California, January, 2018.
“Industrialization and Marketization in the U.S. Agricultural System.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the
Chinese Ministry of Finance and provincial agencies, Pomona, California, October, 2017.
“Agricultural Production through Technology and Commercialization.” Seminar presentation for university and provincial
government representatives from Gansu, China; City of Industry, California, February, 2017.
“American Agriculture and Policy.” Two and a half day workshop for representatives of the State Aquaculture Enterprise
(Anhui Province, China), Pomona, California, February, 2016.
“American Agricultural Economy and Agricultural Policy.” Two day workshop for representatives of the State Grain
Authority (Beijing, China), Pomona, California, November, 2015.
“U.S. Agriculture Overview.” Seminar presentation for representatives of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University,
Pomona, California, August, 2015.
“Polishing the Research Report for Publication.” Seminar presentation for representatives of Shanghai University of
Engineering Science, Pomona, California, August, 2015.
“Overview of Research in Agribusiness in the US.” Seminar presentation for representatives of Shanghai Ocean
University, Pomona, California, July, 2015.
“Overview of US Government Agricultural Policy.” Seminar presentation for delegation of government reform
representatives of various provincial governments of China, Pomona, California July, 2015.
“Topics in Agriculture and U.S. Agricultural Policy.” One day seminar for a group of university faculty and government
representatives from Jiangsu Province, China. Burbank, California, March, 2015.
“Innovation in Agribusiness in the United States.” Seminar presentation to representatives of a privately‐owned,
diversified agricultural production company from central China. Pomona, California, December, 2014.
“Agribusiness in the U.S.” One day seminar for a group of equestrian veterinarians from Sinkiang Province, China.
Pomona, California, December, 2014.
106 | P a g e
Presentations in Extension Settings, continued
“Agribusiness: logistics and distribution of grains.” Seminar presentation to a group grain logistics administrators from
various Chinese provinces. Pomona, California, November, 2014.
“Modern Agricultural Management Strategies.” Seminar presentation to representatives of the Dead Animal Disposal
Department of Shanghai, China. Pomona, California, November, 2014.
“Introduction to U.S. Modern Agriculture.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“Modern Agriculture Management Strategy.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“Government Policies for Family Farms.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“U.S. Policies on Agricultural Product Quality Control and Quality Management in Agribusiness.” One day seminar for a
group of government representatives from Jiangsu Province, China, Pomona, California, April, 2014.
“American Farm Development of Modern Agriculture and Modern Equipment and Training of Agricultural Science and
Technology Popularization and Application.” Two day workshop for representatives of the Chinese Ministry of
Agriculture, Beijing, China, Baldwin Park and Industry, California, January, 2014.
“Ecological Control and Prevention.” Seminar presentation to a group of municipal government representatives from
Shanghai, China, Pomona, California, November, 2013.
“Family Farms and Highly Specialized Agricultural Production in the U.S.” Seminar presentation to a delegation from the
Provincial Machinery Bureau of Jiangsu China, Industry, California, October, 2013.
“Modern Agricultural System Construction.” Lead instructor for a three‐day workshop for representatives of the
Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Xingjiang Uyger Autonomous Region of China, Pomona, California,
September, 2013.
“Report from March 1, 2013 Faculty Workshop on Critical Thinking.” Presentation at the CSU Southern California Critical
Thinking Forum. Authors: Belinda Lopez, Jonathan A. Nourse, and Jon C. Phillips. April, 2013.
“U.S. Agricultural Programs, Facilities, and Field Research.” Seminar presentation to a group of representatives from the
Beijing Agriculture Bureau, Beijing, China, Pomona, California, November, 2012.
“Commercialized Family Farms, Specialized Agricultural Production, Mechanization of Agricultural Production and
Agribusiness Management in the U.S.” Two day workshop for a group of representatives from the Wuhan Municipal
Bureau of Agriculture, Wuhan, China. El Monte, California, December, 2012.
107 | P a g e
Presentations in Extension Settings, continued
“U.S. Agricultural Resources and Its Market‐oriented Mode of Operation.” Seminar presentation to a group of
representatives from various agricultural companies and support organizations based in Ningxia, China. Pomona,
California, December, 2012.
“Agricultural Technology in the US.” Seminar presentation to a group of representatives from the Sichuan Academy of
Agricultural Sciences, Chengdu City, Sichuan, China. Pomona, California, June, 2011.
“U.S. Agricultural Product Development, Resources, Policy, and Research.” Seminar presentation to a group of provincial
finance ministry officials from Jilin and Henan Provinces, China. Pomona, California, December, 2010.
“Agricultural Production and Management, and Development of Modern Agriculture,” Seminar presentation to a group
of government officials from Changping District, Beijing Municipality, China. Pomona, California, June, 2010.
“U.S. Grain Marketing: Macro‐Control and Grain Storage.” Seminar presentation for agricultural researchers from
Shandong Province, China. Pomona, California, December, 2009.
“Sustainable Agriculture: Ecology and Management.” One day workshop presented to government representatives from
Haibei Region of Qinghai Province, China. Pomona, California, December, 2009.
“United States Agriculture and Federal Agricultural Policy.” One day workshop presented to agricultural agency
representatives from Fujian Province, China. Commerce, California, November, 2009.
“The U.S. Industrialized Agricultural System Development.” Seminar presentation for officials from the Provincial
Department of Agriculture, Shandong, China. Pomona, California, October, 2009.
“California Afghanistan Agriculture Development Team Training Program.” Three day workshop conducted for the
California National Guard. Pomona, California, August, 2009.
“U.S. Agricultural Product Development, Agricultural Resources, and California Agricultural Policy.” Seminar presentation
for officials from the Science and Technology Department, Hunan, China. Pomona, California, April, 2009.
“Extending Agricultural Education and Research in America.” Seminar presentation for officials from Central Agricultural
Broadcasting and Television School, Beijing, China. Pomona, California, March, 2009.
“Agricultural Extension, Quarantine Regulations, and Byproducts Processing.” Seminar presentation for county and
provincial agricultural officials from Shanxi Province, China. Pomona, California, April, 2008.
“Faculty Persistence in Service‐Learning." Jon C. Phillips with the Cal Poly Pomona Service‐Learning Academic College
Advisory Committee. Panel presentation at the Third Annual CSU Conference on Community Based Teaching and
Research. Co‐presenters and co‐authors: Sandra Mizumoto Posey, and Irma Ramirez; co‐authors: Estella Ballon, Kris Day,
and Larisa Preiser. Los Angeles, California, March, 2008.
“Issues in the California and U.S. Agricultural Economies.” Seminar presentation for representatives of agribusinesses
and government agricultural agencies from Jilin Province, Sichuan Province, and Inner Mongolia, China. Pomona,
California, December, 2007.
Presentations in Extension Settings, continued
108 | P a g e
“Agricultural Resources, Organization, and Collaboration.” Seminar presentation for managers of agricultural
associations and corporations from Beijing, Yunnan, and Henan, China. Pomona, California, November, 2007.
“Agricultural Development, Achievements, and Support from the State.” Seminar presentation for representatives of
provincial agricultural agencies and food companies, Jiangsu, China. Pomona, California, October, 2007.
“Using Faculty Learning Communities to Encourage Service Learning.” Panel presentation at the Second Annual CSU
Conference on Community‐Based Teaching and Research. Co‐presenters and co‐authors: Jon C. Phillips, Sandra
Mizumoto Posey and Thienhuong Hoang; co‐authors: Dennis Quinn and Hend Gilli‐Elewy. San Jose, California, February,
2007.
“Issues in U.S. Food Processing and Manufacturing.” Workshop presentation for representatives of Shunxin Agriculture
(an integrated agri‐food conglomerate located in Beijing, China). Pomona, California, November, 2006.
“Strategies and Policies of Sustainable Agriculture, Advanced Farm Management Methods, and International Trade of
Agriculture Products in the U.S.” Seminar presentation for agricultural researchers from provincial and county agencies
from Gansu Province. Pomona, California, November, 2006.
“California and American Agricultural Economy and Trends.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the Chinese
Ministry of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Records, Beijing, China. Pomona, California, October, 2006.
“Agriculture and Food Processing in the U.S.” Seminar presentation for representatives of agricultural marketing and
food processing firms from Nancheng, China. Pomona, California, October, 2006.
“Agriculture and Foodways.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the State Agricultural Science Research and
Development Institute, Agricultural Machinery and Tea Division, from Jiangsu, China. Pomona, California, October, 2006.
“Strategies and Policies of Sustainable Agricultural Development in the U.S.” Seminar presentation for government and
university representatives from Henan Province, China. Pomona, California, September, 2006.
“American Agriculture: Origins and Trade.” Seminar presentation for agribusiness industry representatives from Shanxi
Province, China. Pomona, California, June, 2006.
“Overview of American Agricultural Research, Markets, and Resources.” Seminar presentation for agribusiness industry
representatives from Beijing, China. Pomona, California, June, 2006.
“In‐Class Group Work: Experiences in an Agribusiness Course.” Workshop presentation at the Ninth C.S.U. Regional
Symposium on University Teaching, CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA, April, 2006.
“Development of U.S. Agriculture.” One‐day workshop for officials from poverty reduction agencies from Hunan
Province, China. Pomona, California, March, 2006.
“U.S. Agricultural Industry.” Seminar presentation for municipal officials from Gansu Province, China. Pomona,
California, March, 2006.
“Issues in American Agricultural Resources, Research, and Product Development.” Seminar presentation for
representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, China. Pomona, California, November, 2005.
Presentations in Extension Settings, continued
109 | P a g e
“Overview of Agricultural Organizations and Their Historical Development.” Seminar presentation for representatives of
the Azerbaijani Agricultural Inputs Association as part of a training program administered by the Cal Poly Pomona
International Center, funded by U.S.A.I.D. Pomona, California, September, 2005.
“Agribusiness Strategic Planning.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the Azerbaijani Agricultural Inputs
Association as part of a training program administered by the Cal Poly Pomona International Center, funded by U.S.A.I.D.
Pomona, California, September, 2005.
“Fundraising and Sustainability for Agribusiness Associations.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the
Azerbaijani Agricultural Inputs Association as part of a training program administered by the Cal Poly Pomona
International Center, funded by U.S.A.I.D. Pomona, California, September, 2005.
“Models of Agri‐Food Marketing.” Seminar presentation for representatives of agribusiness firms at CETYS Universidad,
Mexicali, Mexico, July, 2005.
“Group Projects in Food Marketing and Agribusiness Management.” Workshop presentation at the Eighth CSU Regional
Symposium on University Teaching. Kellogg West Conference Center, Pomona, California, April, 2005.
“Organic Marketing Cooperatives.” Seminar presentation at the Michigan Organic Conference. East Lansing, Michigan,
March, 2001.
“Strategic Analysis and Proposed Options.” Technical assistance presentation to the Organic Growers of Michigan ‐
Southwest Chapter. Kalamazoo, Michigan, January, 2001.
“Demand Overview for Organic Produce.” Technical assistance presentation to the Organic Growers of Michigan ‐
Southwest Chapter. Kalamazoo, Michigan, October, 2000.
“Summary of Socioeconomic Data Analysis for the Southern Tier Cluster of Michigan Counties.” Outreach presentation
to Southern Tier Cluster Steering Committee. Coldwater, Michigan, October, 1998.
“Introduction to the ‘Enhancing Rural Economies’ Project.” Outreach presentation to community leaders of Branch
County, Coldwater. Michigan, September, 1998.
“Potato Business Update.” Seminar presentation to potato growers from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as part of a
technology satellite conference. East Lansing, Michigan, February, 1998.
Poster Presentations
Burns‐Whitmore, B., L. Hays, and J. Phillips (2015). “Effects of Pistachios on Nutrient Intake and Diet Quality in Female
University Students,” poster presentation at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo, Nashville, Tennessee,
October.
Phillips, Jon C., Benjamin Lehan, Abraham Gomez, Cesar Martin, Soraya Nolasco, Chastity Rosales, Bryce von Helms, and
Dennis Wu (2015). “Shelton’s Poultry: A Business Strategy Case Study,” poster presentation at the Agricultural and
Applied Economics Association Meetings, San Francisco, California, July.
110 | P a g e
Poster Presentations, continued
Phillips, Jon C. and Fatima R. Tamayo (2014). “Student Evaluation of a Training Program in International Agricultural
Development,” poster presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, August.
Phillips, Jon C. and Adriana Ortega (2013).“Rating the Websites of Agricultural Experiment Stations,” poster presentation
at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Washington, DC, August.
Wohlcke, Anne, Belinda Lopez, Chari Pradel, Claudia L. Pinter‐Lucke, Jon C. Phillips, Jonathan A. Nourse, Laura Fujimoto‐
Hernandez, Nancy M. Fan, Patricia A. de Freitas, and Richard A. Kallan (2012). “Engaging Faculty in Assessment of
General Education: A Case Study,” poster presentation at the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ General
Education and Assessment Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February.
Phillips, Jon C. and Lauren Hays (2011).“Engaging People, Engaging in Service: A Case Study of a Community Garden,”
poster presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July.
Rahman, N. and Jon C. Phillips. (2010) “Productivity of International Outsourcing: Halal Broiler Industry in Malaysia,”
poster presentation at the 68th Professional Agricultural Workers Conference, Tuskegee, Alabama, December.
Phillips, Jon C., Jesselin Hioetama, and Peter Goldsmith. (2010) “Development and Implementation of a Training
Program for the California National Guard’s Mission to Afghanistan,” poster presentation at the 2010 International Food
and Agribusiness Management Association World Food and Agribusiness Symposium, Boston, Massachusetts, June.
Phillips, Jon C. and Samantha Hilbon (2010). “New Infrastructure for Panama to Aid Rural Farmers and Promote
Economic Development,” poster presentation at the 31st Annual Central California Research Symposium, Fresno,
California, April.
Phillips, Jon C. (2009).“Making ‘Global Resources for Food’ a Hybrid Course,” poster presentation at the Food
Distribution Research Society Conference, Denver, Colorado, November.
Phillips, Jon C. (2009).“Assessment of an Agribusiness Degree Program Using Alumni Perceptions,” poster presentation
at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July.
Phillips, Jon C. (2009).“Rating the Web Sites of Cooperative Extension Services,” poster presentation at the American
Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July.
Phillips, Jon C. (2008). “Assessment of an Agribusiness Major: A Case Study,” poster presentation at the American
Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Orlando, Florida, July.
111 | P a g e
Poster Presentations, continued
A. Allan Schmid and Jon C. Phillips (2008). “Managing an Externality in the Confectionary Industry,” poster presentation
at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Orlando, Florida, July.
Phillips, Jon C., Chelsye D. DeBoor, and Lauren Hays (2008). “Toward Sustainable Agriculture and Improved Natural
Resource Use in Senegal,” poster presentation at the 29th Central California Research Symposium, Fresno, California,
April.
Phillips, Jon C., Wojciech Florkowski, Flint Freeman, L. Pilar Rodriguez, Cristin Hicks, Jillian Bada, and Fanny Escamilla
(2007). “Student Evaluation of Faculty in Colleges of Agriculture,” poster presentation at the American Agricultural
Economics Association Meetings, Portland, Oregon, July.
Yang, Sylvia, Jon C. Phillips, and H. Christopher Peterson (2007). “The Impact of a Regulatory Event on Ethanol Stocks,”
poster presentation at the 2007 International Food and Agribusiness Management Association World Food and
Agribusiness Symposium, Parma, Italy, June.
Phillips, Jon C., Judy Dang, Shawn Gonzalez, Nyleve Henry, William Hsia, Michael Johnston, and Cassandra Still (2006).
“An Empirical Study of Online Grocery Shopping Preferences and Behavior,” poster presentation at the Food Distribution
Research Society Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, October.
Yang, Sylvia Chun‐Chun, Atsushi Kanaya, Jon C. Phillips, and Christopher Peterson (2006). “Optimal Capital Structure for
a Newly‐Merged Firm: The Case of Brewer Molson Coors,” poster presentation at the 2006 International Food and
Agribusiness Management Association World Food and Agribusiness Symposium, Buenos Aires, Argentina, June.
Phillips, Jon C., April Drukin, and Amira Mikail (2006). “Consumer Preferences and Retail Trends Affecting Raisin
Marketing,” poster presentation at the 27th Annual Central California Research Symposium, Fresno, CA, April.
Posey, Sandra M., Liam Corley, Hend Gilli‐Elewy, Thienhuong Hoang, Jon C. Phillips, Dennis Quinn, and Ed Walton
(2006). “An Empirical Examination of Service‐Learning Models.” Poster presentation at the 27th Annual Central California
Research Symposium, Fresno, California, April.
Phillips, Jon C., Atsushi Kanaya, Carlos Gonzalez, Esmeralda Aguilera, Emily Weir, Karla Wong, Cesar Bravo, Rafael
Galvan, and Al Wysocki (2005). “Factors Affecting Consumer Loyalty after a Supermarket Strike/Lockout,” poster
presentation at the Food Distribution Research Society Conference, Washington, D.C., October.
Phillips, Jon C. (2005). “A Consumer‐Value‐Based Analysis of Internet Food Marketing,” poster presentation at the 2005
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association World Food and Agribusiness Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, June.
Phillips, Jon C., April Drukin, Heather Kazmaier, Russell Bassett, and Mary‐Kate D. Francesco (2005). “An Empirical Study
of Issues and Trends Affecting the California Raisin Industry,” poster presentation at the 26th Annual Central California
Research Symposium, Fresno, California, April.
112 | P a g e
Poster Presentations, continued
Binns, Julie, Jon C. Phillips, and Maria Botero Omary (2004). “Competitive Analysis of Hispanic‐Oriented Supermarkets in
Southern California Emphasizing the Cookie Category,” poster presentation at the Food Distribution Research Society
Conference, Morro Bay, California, October.
Phillips, Jon C. (2004). “Program Assessment in Tight Budgetary Times: The Case of a Non‐Land‐Grant College of
Agriculture,” poster presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Denver, Colorado,
August.
Phillips, Jon C., Blake Blomberg, Josh Edgar, Valerie Hughes, Jamie Masters, and Kimberly Welch (2003). “Country‐of‐
Origin Labeling of Produce: An Empirical Study of Consumer Preferences,” poster presentation at the Food Distribution
Research Society Conference, Biloxi, Mississippi, October.
Phillips, Jon C. and Peterson, Chris (2000). “Management Emphasis, Product Offerings, and Resource Needs of Value‐
Added Agriculture Producers: Results from a Mail Survey and Telephone Interviews,” poster presentation at the
American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Tampa, Florida, August.
Phillips, Jon C. (2000). “Michigan Potato Supply: An Analysis of Planted Acreage Data,” poster presentation at the Food
System of the 21st Century: Strategic Opportunities and Challenges workshop, East Lansing, Michigan, February.
Chris Peterson, David Schweikhardt, Michael Masterovsky, Jon C. Phillips, and Mary Schulz (1998). “Demand and Supply
Assessment for the Michigan Frozen Potato Industry,” poster presentation at the International Food and Agribusiness
Management Association (IAMA) World Food and Agribusiness Congress, Punta del Este, Uruguay, June.
Grants and Contracts (P.I., unless otherwise indicated)
“Business Marketing Planning for New Agricultural Products,” USDA‐NIFA HSI grant, Val Mellano (P.I.) Jon C. Phillips,
Collaborator, funded for $202,000, from 2012 – 2015.
“Nevada Guard ADT Training Program,” Nevada National Guard, funded for $23,337 in 2010.
“Initial Development and Fundraising for the Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions,” Agricultural
Research Initiative campus grant, funded for $57,234, from 2002 – 2005.
“An Examination of Demand Conditions Faced by the California Raisin Industry,” Cal Poly Pomona Research, Scholarly,
and Creative Activity program grant, funded for $3,000, in 2004.
Consulting Activities
Development of the Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions, $1,300 (fall, 2002)
Farm plan for an orchard in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County, $2,000 (spring, 2006)
113 | P a g e
Memberships and Leadership Positions
National Association of Agricultural Economics Administrators (2018 – present)
National Agri‐Marketing Association (2013 – present)
Kiwifruit Administrative Committee, Alternate Public Member (2012 – 2016), Public Member (2016 – present)
Raisin Administrative Committee, Public Member (2006 – 2014)
Food Distribution Research Society (2003 – present)
Western Agricultural Economics Association (WAEA) (1999 ‐ present)
American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) (1998 ‐ present)
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) (1998 ‐ present)
Graduate Student Organization, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Vice President (1999 ‐
2000)
Graduate Policy Committee, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
(1999 ‐ 2000)
Michigan State Sustainable Agriculture Network (MSAN), Department of Agricultural Economics Liaison (1998 ‐ 2001)
Scholarships and Honors
Faculty Fellow, John C. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, California State Polytechnic University (included $4,500 for
project, 2006 – 2007)
Gamma Sigma Delta, national honor society for agriculture (admitted 2006)
Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Dissertation Completion Fellowship (2001)
Student Oral Presentation Competition (Second Place), Michigan State Sustainable Agriculture Network’s annual
research symposium, Michigan State University (2000)
Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Travel Fellowship
(1998, 1999, and 2000)
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) Student Travel Scholarship
(1998 and 1999)
Michigan State University Graduate School Travel Fellowship (1998)
114 | P a g e
Scholarships and Honors, continued
Michigan State University Office of International Studies Global Young Scholars Grant (1998)
A. Robert Kleiner Memorial Scholarship, AAUP ‐ Western Michigan University Chapter (1996)
Beta Gamma Sigma national business honor fraternity (admitted 1990)
Undergraduate Scholarships and Awards: University of Michigan Regents ‐ Alumni Scholarship, Arthur Hill Memorial
Scholarship (Second Place), State of Michigan Competitive Scholarship, Maude Ripley‐Schemm Scholarship, Saginaw
Public Schools Secretary Association Scholarship, Saxe‐Herig Scholarship, Michigan Higher Education Award, Financial
Management Association (admitted 1985)
National Merit Scholar (1980)
Reviewer for the Following Publications and Organizations
Agriculture, an MDPI Journal (two articles)
Journal of Food Distribution Research (five articles), member of Editorial Review Board in 2007
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review (four articles)
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (one article)
Choices, a Peer‐Reviewed Journal (one article)
Sustainability, an MDPI Journal (one article)
American Agricultural Economics Association (multiple proposals for selected papers for annual meeting)
Western Agricultural Economics Association (multiple proposals for selected papers for annual meeting)
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (multiple proposals for selected papers for three annual
symposia)
Agricultural Research Initiative (California State University System), two system‐wide proposals
Faculty Senate Grant for Research and Scholarship (West Virginia University), one proposal
External Reviewer for Personnel Actions
Candidate for promotion to full professor, Saint Joseph’s University, summer, 2016
Candidate for promotion to full professor, Missouri State University, summer, 2016
Candidate for promotion to full professor, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, summer, 2017
115 | P a g e
Steven Archambault
Agribusiness & Food Industry Management
Cal-Poly Pomona University
3801 W Temple Ave
Pomona, CA 91768
(909) 869-2190
PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS
2018-Current Agricultural Research Institute Campus Coordinator; California Polytechnic University—Pomona
2016-Current California Polytechnic University—Pomona, Department of Agribusiness and Food Industry Management, Don. B. Huntley College of Agriculture, Assistant Professor
2012-2016 New Mexico State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, Assistant Professor
Affiliations with Economics and Business M.A., M.S., and MBA programs; Economic Development and Water Science Management Doctoral Programs
2009-2012 Central New Mexico Community College, Communications, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Adjunct Economics Instructor
EDUCATION
2012 Ph.D., Economics, University of New Mexico (with Distinction)
Dissertation Title: Household Food Security in Developing Countries: Understanding the Role of Dynamic Natural and Social Systems (Dissertation Advisor: Alok Bohara)
Fields of Specialization: Environmental and natural resources, Development, and Applied econometrics
2007 M.A., Economics, University of New Mexico
2002 M.S., Environmental Management and Policy, International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Sweden
1999 B.S. Biology (Chemistry Minor), University of New Mexico (Cum Laude)
OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2003-2005 Mickey Leland International Fellowship--Congressional Hunger Center with the
United Nations World Food Program (stationed in Kampala, Uganda and Rome,
116 | P a g e
Italy).
2002-2003 Sustainability of electronic paper, freelance environmental consultant.
1999-2001 Aquaculture Specialist and High School Teacher, Marine Environment Research Institute, Pohnpei, Micronesia (Jesuit Volunteer Program).
Notable Projects
Steering committee for the development of Cal-Poly Pomona's Urban
Agriculture Center 2017-current
Led development project for urban aquaponics system at Cal-Poly Pomona 2017-current Primary Investigator for USDA specialty crops marketing and research 2017 Completed regression analysis of household survey data to understand
the role of financial subsidies and poverty in Mexico 2015-2016 Quantitative analysis of algae production data as part of a US DOE Grant 2012-2015 Analyzed the impacts of natural disasters on foreign investment decisions
and the delivery of foreign assistance 2014-current Awarded National Science Foundation grant and led a multi-disciplinary
team to study small scale irrigation systems in New Mexico 2014
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
2016-Current Courses taught at Cal-Poly Pomona University: Fundamentals of Regnerative Studies (Graduate Course in Lyle Center) Water Policy and Management Retail and Wholesale Marketing Applied Agricultural Economics
Graduate Research Methods Agriculture and the Modern World International Agribusiness Marketing Agriculture Ethics
2012-2016 Graduate courses taught at New Mexico State University: International Economic Development Seminar (MA and MBA Programs)
International Agricultural Trade and Policy (MA and MBA Programs) Advanced Microeconomics (MA and Doctoral Programs) Economic Development Finance (Doctoral Program) Urban Economic Development (Doctoral Program)
2009-2010 Central New Mexico Community College:
Economics Overview
117 | P a g e
Introductory Microeconomics: Traditional and Online Setting
Introductory Macroeconomics: Traditional and Online Setting
2008 Intermediate Microeconomics, Instructor of Record, University of New Mexico 2005-2006, Graduate Assistant—Acted as grader, tutor, and mentor: Microeconomics, 2008 International Development, Survey of Environmental Issues, & Macroeconomics
ADVISING
Academic Advising and Final Project Committee Involvement
Year Role Student Final Project Title
2017-current Academic Advisor Undergraduate Students
2016-current Master's Thesis Committee
Christina Romero
2016-current Master's Thesis Committee/Advisor
Tony DeVeyra
2016 Master's Thesis Committee
Ashley Van Vilet Knowledge of Southern California Residents On Asian Citrus Psyllid And Citrus Greening Disease
2013-2015 Master’s Advisor Dean McKnight "Aquaponics for Small Operations in
New Mexico"
2014-2015 Master's Non-Thesis Project (Committee Chair)
Fatemeh Torkamani
"Natural Shocks: Does the Adoption of Erosion Control Technology Improve the Outcomes of Drought or Floods?"
2013-2015 Master’s Advisor Erly Kueain "Factors Affecting Microenterprise Development Programs Failure and Success in The United States: A case study of some programs in New Mexico"
2014-2015 Master's Advisor & Thesis (Committee Member) (Water Science and Management)
Spencer Wilman " Assessment of Spatiotemporal Groundwater Level Changes Throughout New Mexico"
2013 Doctoral Final Project (Committee Chair)
Francis Reyes “Impact of Water Availability in Urban Economic Development”
118 | P a g e
2013 Doctoral Final Project (Committee Chair)
Luis Rodriguez “Analysis of innovation distribution among the United States; an Econometric Approach at County Level”
2015-2015 Master's Thesis (Committee Member)
Befakadu Habteyes "Mutually Beneficial And Sustainable Management of Ethiopian and Egyptian Dams in the Nile Basin"
2012-2013 Dissertation & Oral Exam (Committee Member)
Abd-Elaziz Hussein Abdallah
“An Economic Approach to Sustainable Irrigation Management: Methods and Policy Applications”
2013-2014 Master's Thesis (Committee Member)
Hector Hernandez "Smallholder farmers of Tanzania: Household models of food security with shocks to agricultural production"
RESEARCH FUNDING
2017 Value-added Producer Grant (Extension)
2015 Mexico’s secretary for agriculture, livestock, rural development, fisheries and nutrition (SAGARPA) Extension Project.
2013-2014 Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (CO-PI), “Algae Transition Support Project Modeling Support to Algae HTL Pathway”.
2013-2014 Boeing, sub-contract, “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic Analysis (TEA) of sustainable aviation biofuels".
2012-2013 Department of Energy, National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts,
sub-contract.
2013 Innovation Working Group Award (PI), NSF funded N.M. EPSCOR grant, “Cataloging Ecosystem Services in the Acequia (small scale irrigation) Landscape”
119 | P a g e
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
2014-current Reviewer for Sustainability
2014-current Reviewer for Land Economics
2013-current Reviewer for Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources
2013-current Reviewer for African Journal of Agricultural Research
2012-current Reviewer for Environmental Management
2012-current Reviewer for Water Resource Economics
UNIVERSITY SERVICE
Doctoral of Economic Development Graduate Faculty Committee, 2012-current
Oral and written comprehensive examinations, 2012-current
Economics (Ag. and Business) Graduate Faculty Committee, 2012-current
Water Science and Management Graduate Faculty Committee, 2012-current
Additional Training
Data Science and Management Certificate, Johns Hopkins University 2015-current Online teaching training 2014
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT
Member Middle Rio Grande Irrigation District 2010-current Little League Coaching 2018-current El Salvador student sponsorship 2011-2012 Albuquerque High School Gym Lofts HOA Board (President) 2008-2010 Sustainability Panel Speaker, Univ. of New Mexico Sustainability Film Festival 2007-2009 Attended National Student Environmental Leadership Meeting, Santa Fe, NM 2007 Featured in Mirage Magazine (University of New Mexico Alumni Magazine) 2007 International Institute of Environmental Economics Graduation Speech 2002 Awarded traditional title in Phone, Micronesia: Oun Temora en Kehparoi 2001 Lund University Young Masters online sustainability education program 2001
RELATED SKILLS
Technical Skills
Expertise in data management, statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis Highly proficient with both time series and cross-sectional data
120 | P a g e
Comfortable merging, cleaning, and collecting large datasets Strong experience with STATA (primary) statistical software, Microsoft suite, and R (working knowledge) Completed several optimal control data modeling, simulation, and sensitivity analyses (using Maple mathematical
software) Experience with spatial analysis and GIS mapping software (using ArcGIS software) Additional computer programming skills (working knowledge) include HTML and Python
Writing and Presentation Skills
Authored numerous research papers, reports, and short-essays (List of publications available upon request). Completed many quantitative and qualitative data analyses in easy to understand language. Presented research at numerous academic conferences and professional meetings. Advised graduate students towards the completion of their final projects.
LANGUAGES
English-Native Spanish-Basic conversational and reading Pohnpeian-Basic conversational French-Can read with Dictionary Italian-Can read with Dictionary
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
International Association of Energy Economics (current) American Water Resources Association (current) International Society for Ecological Economics (current) American Agricultural Economics Association (current)
PUBLICATIONS
Peer Reviewed Articles
In Preparation
17. Johnson, M. Archambault, S., M.C. Downes, J. Richardson. Two Estimated Algal Biomass Production Functions for an Economic Feasibility Comparison: How Critical is Biomass Production to Economic Success? Environmental Science and Technology (Under Review)
16. Trivette, S., Archambault, S., Morales, A. Quantitative exploration of Market Sales: Williamsburg Farmers Market Time Series Analysis. (In Preparation for Applied Agricultural Economics Association meeting).
15. Do, L. and Archambault, S. Maquiladoras and Economic Development: Evidence Across Mexican
121 | P a g e
Communities. (in Preparation: Development Journal of the South)
14. Archambault, S., A.K. Bohara, and K. Bhattarai. Food Security Reliance on Natural Systems in Nepal. (in Preparation: Environment and Development Economics)
13. Archambault, S., K. Grimsrud, K. Bhattarai, A.K. Bohara. Food security: a Dynamic
optimization model. (in Preparation: Environmental and Resource Economics)
12. Archambault, S., A.K. Bohara, and K. Bhattarai. Household Food Security’s Reliance on
Social Capital in Nepal. (in Preparation: Food Security)
11. Archambault, S., A.K. Bohara, and K. Grimsrud. Global food aid response to natural disasters and conflict: a Dynamic analysis. (in preparation: Food Policy)
Completed
11. Fonner, R., Bohara, A., and Archambault, S. Migration Choices during Conflict in Nepal: Pull forces and landscape interactions. (Accepted for Publication International Journal for Development and Conflict)
10. Trivette, S., Archambault, S., Morales, A. Money Made at the Market: Sales at the Williamsburg Farmers Market. Working Paper Series. Department of Urban And Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension. 2015-01.
9. Archambault, S., N. Raheem, J. Rivera, J. Goldstein, J. Price, S. Colt, S. Martin, J.Wang, K. Boykin, S. Guldan, P. Arnold, E. M. Gonzales, Arellano, D. Kopp, C. Oldham. Non-Market Valuation of Acequia Ecosystem Services. WIRES Water.
8. Archambault, S., M.C. Downes, C. Erickson, W. Voorhies, P. Lammers. 2014. Nannochloropsis sp. algae for use as biofuel: Analyzing a translog production function using data from multiple sites in the southwestern United States. Algal Research. 6:124-131.
7. Tiwari, B. N. and Archambault, S. 2009. Policies for reducing horizontal inequalities in post-conflict Nepal. Himalayan Journal of Development and Democracy. 4(1):25-33.
6. Archambault, S. 2008. Improving Food Security in Nepal: Analyzing the Results of a World Food Program Survey. Himalayan Journal of Development and Democracy. 3(1):35.
5. Archambault, S. and J. Ulibarri. 2007. Nonmarket valuation of acequias: Stakeholder analysis. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 6(6):491-495.
4. Archambault, S. 2004. Factors promoting or inhibiting the integration of ecologically modern principles into the Ugandan agriculture industry. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 9:1-6.
3. Archambault, S. 2004. Addressing Food-For-Work Concerns in the West Nile Region of Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 9:77-83.
2. Archambault, S. 2004. Capacity and organizational deficiencies in the effort of Ugandan Farmer Groups to supply beans and maize—the perspective of a large buyer. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 9:785-790.
1. Archambault, S. 2004. Ecological modernization of the agriculture industry in southern Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production. 12(5):491-503.
122 | P a g e
Book Chapters
6. Archambault, S. 2015. Global Hunger and Famine. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine Issues, Lerner, K. (ed.), Gale Group.
5. Archambault, S. 2015. Water Supplies and Access to Clean Water. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine Issues, Lerner, K. (ed.), Gale Group.
4. Archambault, S. 2015. Vulnerable Populations. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine Issues, Lerner, K. (ed.), Gale Group.
3. Archambault, S. 2015. Federal Trade Commission. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
2. Archambault, S. 2015. Price Wars. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
1. Archambault, S. 2015. Monopolies. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
Reference Articles
43-45. Archambault, S., 2011, “Ecological impacts of various world diets”, “Urban Farming & Gardening”, “Nutrition and U.S. Government Food Assistance”, Food in Context, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
37-42. Archambault, S., 2006, “The New Way With Crime (Death Penalty in England)”, “A former U.S. Police Chief Stirs the Pot on Drugs (Drug Legalization)”, “Rwanda Genocide”, “Statement of the Majority of the Board of Selectmen (Growth of New England)”, “Must They Die (Rosenberg Trials)”, “Human Trafficking Goes On in the U.S., too”, Crime and Punishment: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
29-36. Archambault, S., 2006, “Pesticide persisting beyond scheduled elimination date (Methyl Bromide)”, “Lysenkoism”,“Turning the Tide (Coral Reefs near Florida)”,“Memories still linger 25 years after Three Mile Island accident”, “And Now, a New York Version of Star Wars (Light Pollution)”, “Rescuing Environmentalism (Environmental Economics)”, “An African Success Story (Soil Conservation)”, “Global Warming: The Culprit? Evidence mounts that human activity is helping fuel these monster hurricanes”, Environmental Issues: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
19-28. Archambault, S. 2006. “United Underground”, “Volksfront”, “Turkish Revolutionary Left (Dev Sol)”, “Red Brigades”, “Revolutionary Front For The Independence Of East Timor (Fretilin)”, “Turkish Hezbollah (Hizballah)”, “United Patriots and Associates”, “Lord's Resistance Army”, “Cuban Liberator Army”, “European Nationalist Fascists”, Extremist Groups: Information For Students, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
18. Archambault, S. 2006. “Orphaned by AIDS”, Family in Society: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
15-17. Archambault, S. 2006. Gender Issues and Sexuality: Essential Primary Sources, “Division of Labor in Farming (Women in Agriculture)”, “Women in Aboriginal Societies”, “Vice Resorts Parlor Houses (Prostitution New York City, early 1900s)”, Gender Issues and Sexuality: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
123 | P a g e
10-14. Archambault, S. 2006. “Rwandan Refugees in Bukavu”, “Act of March 26, 1790”, “Processing Immigrant Arrivals at Ellis Island”, “Plan of a Slave Ship's Hold”, “1933 World's Fair in Chicago”. Immigration and Multiculturalism: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
8-9. Archambault, S. 2006. “Famine and Public Health”, “Zoonosis”. Medicine, Health, Bioethics: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
4-7. Archambault, S. 2006. "How the Other Half Lives", “How Not to Help Our Poorer Brothers”, “Once Woeful, Alabama is Model in Child Welfare”, “Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act”, Social Policy: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson|Gale
1-3. Archambault, S. 2005. “Political terrorism: Murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro”, “Police Sure Drug Addict was Berlin Disco Bomber Berlin discotheque bombing”, “USA Patriot Act”. Terrorism: Essential Primary Sources, Lerner, B.W. and Lerner, K.L. (Eds.), Thomson Gale.
Conference Participation: Talks, Proceedings Articles and Abstracts
19. Trivette, S., Archambault, S., Morales, A. Money Made at the Market: Sales at the Williamsburg Farmers Market. (2018 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meeting)
18. Creegan, E., Phillips, J., Archambault, S. High Performance Teams for an Agribusiness Student Competition” (2017 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meeting)
17. Do, L. and Archambault, S. “Income Growth and Industrial Landscape: Examining Mexican Household Survey Data”, Southern Economic Association 86th Annual Meeting, November 19-21, 2016, Washington, D.C. (Paper presentation)
16. Carroll, K.,Willman, S., Fernald, A. Archambault, S. “Spatiotemporal Groundwater-Level Change for the Evaluation of Groundwater Use and Dynamics”, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 12-16, 2015, San Francisco, CA. (Paper presentation)
15. Aherns, C., Pinappu, S., Archambault, S. “The Mitigating Role of Forest Cover Change on the Impact of Natural Disasters”, Canada United States Ecological Economics 2015 Joint Biennial
Conference, October 1-5, 2015. Vancouver, Canada. (Paper presentation)
14. Archambault, S., Raheem, N., Gonzales, M., Do, L. “Valuing Ecosystem Services of the Acequia Agroecosystem Landscape”, Canada United States Ecological Economics 2015 Joint Biennial Conference, October 1-5, 2015. Vancouver, Canada. (Paper presentation)
13. “Fair Trade and Social Justice”, Theology on Tap, March 3, 2015. Las Cruces, NM. (invited talk)
12. “Nannochloropsis sp. algae for use as biofuel: Analyzing a translog production function using data from multiple sites in the southwestern United States”, Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, November 21, 2014. Albuquerque, NM. (invited talk)
11. “Beyond the Millennium Development Goals”, Rotary Club, March 4, 2014. Las Cruces, NM. (invited talk)
10. Raheem, N., Archambault, S., Gonzales, M. Guldan, S., Arellan, E, Colt, S. 2014. "Combining TEK with ecosystem services in acequia landscapes in New Mexico" Water Systems, Science, and Society Under Global Change. Universities Council on Water Resources. Annual Conference, June 18-20. Medford, MA. (Abstract)
124 | P a g e
9. Archambault, S. 2014. “Evaluating Changes in Land Use and Food Security: Does the Data Indicate an Optimal Level of Vegetation to Be Conserved in Nepal?” 2nd Global LAND Project, March 19-21, Berlin, Germany. (Paper Presentation)
8. Downes, M., Archambault, S., Erickson, C., Lammers, P., and Van Voorhies, W. 2013. “Formulation and estimation of a production function model of biofuels from microalgae”, 7th Algal Biosummit, Sept. 30-Oct. 1, Orlando, FL (Abstract)
7. “Aquifer Storage: Benefits and Costs”, Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly, Speaker, Nov. 5, 2011. Albuquerque, NM. (invited talk)
6. Tiwari, B. N., Archambault, S. 2009. “Social and economic policies for reducing horizontal inequalities in post-conflict Nepal”, 4th Annual Himalayan Policy Research Conference, Oct. 9, Madison, WI. (Presenter, Panel Discussant)
5. Archambault, S. 2009. “The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Foreign Direct Investment”, 51st Western Social Sciences Association Annual Conference, April 15-April 18, Albuquerque, NM. (Presenter)
4. Archambault, S. 2008. “Improving Food Security in Nepal: Analyzing the Results of a World Food Program Survey”, 3rd Annual Himalayan Policy Research Conference, Oct. 16, Madison, WI. (Presenter, Panel Discussant)
3. Archambault, S. 2008. “Albuquerque’s San Juan-Chama River Use and Storage”, University of New Mexico Graduate Student Symposium (Presenter)
2. Archambault, S. 2007. “Modeling Aquifer Storage: Options for Albuquerque’s San Juan-Chama River Allotment”, 43rd American Water Resources Assoc. Annual Meeting, Nov. 12-15, Albuquerque, NM. (Poster Presentation)
1. Archambault, S. 2007. “Meeting Water Demand by Controlling Groundwater Extraction and Recharge: A Hybrid Model in Developing Country”, 43rd American Water Resources Assoc. Annual Meeting, Nov. 12-15, Albuquerque, NM. (Co-Presenter)
Peer Reviewed Published Reports
1. Downes, M., Archambault, S., Erickson, C., Van Voorhies, W., Ponnusamy, S. and Garimalla, A. 2014. Algal Oil Industry Model for Selected Sites. National Alliance For Advanced Biofuels and BioProducts Final Report.
125 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Peer‐Reviewed Publications:
Jon C. Phillips
Phillips, J.C., Peterson, H.C. and Porter, S.S. (2014) Inventorying resources: an application to product‐oriented
agriculture, Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Vol. 10, No. 1. Pg.1–14.
Steven Archambault
Fonner, R., Bohara, A., and Archambault, S. Migration Choices during Conflict in Nepal: Pull forces and
landscape interactions. (Accepted for Publication International Journal for Development and Conflict)
Trivette, S., Archambault, S., Morales, A. Money Made at the Market: Sales at the Williamsburg Farmers
Market. Working Paper Series. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin‐
Madison/Extension. 2015‐01.
Archambault, S., N. Raheem, J. Rivera, J. Goldstein, J. Price, S. Colt, S. Martin, J.Wang, K. Boykin, S. Guldan, P.
Arnold, E. M. Gonzales, Arellano, D. Kopp, C. Oldham. Non‐Market Valuation of Acequia Ecosystem Services.
WIRES Water.
Archambault, S., M.C. Downes, C. Erickson, W. Voorhies, P. Lammers. 2014. Nannochloropsis sp. algae for use
as biofuel: Analyzing a translog production function using data from multiple sites in the southwestern United
States. Algal Research. 6:124‐131.
Grant and Contract Activity: Jon C. Phillips
“Business Marketing Planning for New Agricultural Products,” USDA‐NIFA HSI grant, Val Mellano (P.I.) Jon C.
Phillips, Collaborator, funded for $202,000, from 2012 – 2015.
Steven Archambault
“Specialty Crops Marketing and Research,” USDA grant, Steen Archambault (P.I.), no‐cost extension for $85,299, from 2016 – 2017.
126 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Other Publications: Jon C. Phillips
Smith Porter, Shannon and Jon C. Phillips (2014). “Master’s Programs in Agricultural Economics: Situation and
Analysis,” Center for Food Marketing and Agribusiness Solutions Applied Research Report #14‐01. Selected
Paper, Western Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Monterrey, CA. September.
Phillips, Jon C., Shannon Carrigan, Karina Ortega, Maria Santamaria, Fatima Tamayo, and Cassie Thistle (2014).
“An Analysis of the Pet Food and Pet Treats Industry.” Selected Paper, Western Extension and Research
Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Santa Clara, CA. August.
Steven Archambault
Archambault, S. 2015. Global Hunger and Famine. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine Issues, Lerner, K.
(ed.), Gale Group.
Archambault, S. 2015. Water Supplies and Access to Clean Water. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine
Issues, Lerner, K. (ed.), Gale Group.
Archambault, S. 2015. Vulnerable Populations. In Worldmark Global Health and Medicine Issues, Lerner, K.
(ed.), Gale Group.
Archambault, S. 2015. Federal Trade Commission. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
Archambault, S. 2015. Price Wars. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
Archambault, S. 2015. Monopolies. In Food Policy: An Encyclopedia, Albala, K. (ed.), Sage.
Dorothy M. Farias Farias, D.M. (2017). Got Skills? Perspectives of Agribusiness graduate employability [Abstract]. NACTA Journal, 61(1), 39. Farias, D.M. (2016) Employer and Graduate Perspectives of the Essential Professional Skills Needed to Succeed in California Agribusiness: Implications for Undergraduate Programs. (Doctoral dissertation). California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA. Farias, D. M. , Godinez, E., Marvelli, I. & Yim, A. (2014) International Women’s Day Promotional Campaign for Sunshine Bouquet. Floral Management , 31 (3), 32‐34.
127 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations at Conferences: Jon C. Phillips
Phillips, Jon C. and Shunto Kobayashi (2017). Effects of Various Factors on Student Persistence and Graduation. Selected
Paper Presentation, California Association for Institutional Research Conference, Concord, California, November.
Phillips, Jon C., Michelle A. Chon, Nicole Franco, Heechang Hwang, Ashley Kim, Zahira Mo Mai, Peter Ruvalcaba, and Vy
Tran (2017). Strategic Factors Affecting the California Strawberry Industry. Selected Paper (i.e., Research Update)
Presentation at the Food Distribution Research Society Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, October.
Phillips, Jon C., Shannon Carrigan, Karina Ortega, Maria Santamaria, Fatima Tamayo, and Cassie Thistle (2014). An
Analysis of the Pet Food and Pet Treats Industry. Selected Paper Presentation, Western Extension and Research Activity
#72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Santa Clara, CA, June.
Smith Porter, Shannon and Jon C. Phillips (2013). “Master’s Programs in Agricultural Economics: Situation and Analysis,”
Selected Paper Presentation, Western Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Monterrey, CA, July.
Phillips, Jon C. (2013). “Events Related to Recruiting Prospective Students and Retaining Current Students.” Presentation
as part of a panel discussion, “New Ways to Reach Students and Prospective Students,” Jon C. Phillips, Panel Organizer.
Western Extension and Research Activity #72 on Agribusiness Competitiveness (WERA‐72) Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, June.
Steven Archambault
Carroll, K.,Willman, S., Fernald, A. Archambault, S. “Spatiotemporal Groundwater‐Level Change for the Evaluation of
Groundwater Use and Dynamics,” American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 12‐16, 2015, San Francisco, CA.
(Paper presentation)
Aherns, C., Pinappu, S., Archambault, S. “The Mitigating Role of Forest Cover Change on the
Impact of Natural Disasters”, Canada United States Ecological Economics 2015 Joint Biennial
Conference, October 1‐5, 2015. Vancouver, Canada. (Paper presentation)
Archambault, S., Raheem, N., Gonzales, M., Do, L. “Valuing Ecosystem Services of the Acequia Agroecosystem Landscape”, Canada United States Ecological Economics 2015 Joint Biennial Conference, October 1‐5, 2015. Vancouver, Canada. (Paper presentation)
Raheem, N., Archambault, S., Gonzales, M. Guldan, S., Arellan, E, Colt, S. 2014. "Combining TEK with ecosystem services
in acequia landscapes in New Mexico" Water Systems, Science, and Society Under Global Change. Universities Council on
Water Resources. Annual Conference, June 18‐20. Medford, MA. (Abstract)
Archambault, S. 2014. “Evaluating Changes in Land Use and Food Security: Does the Data Indicate an Optimal Level of
Vegetation to Be Conserved in Nepal?” 2nd Global LAND Project, March 19‐21, Berlin, Germany. (Paper Presentation)
128 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations at Conferences continued:
Dorothy M. Farias Farias, D.M. (2017, July). Got Skills? Perspectives of agribusiness graduate employability. Paper Presentation at the
annual meeting of the North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA), West Lafayette, IN
Poster Presentations at Conferences:
Jon C. Phillips
Phillips, Jon C., Ashlyn K. Pouvaranukoah, and Gianluis Pimentel B. (2018). “GMOs and Biodiversity: A Case Study in
Agricultural Ethics,” poster presentation at the 76th Professional Agricultural Workers Conference, Opelika, Alabama,
December.
Phillips, J.C. & Cullen, E. (2017). A Culture of Assessment in a College of Agriculture. 2017 Stories of Successful Learning:
Assessment Across Cal Poly Pomona, Student Affairs and Academic Affairs, Pomona, CA, September 19, 2017. (Poster)
Burns‐Whitmore, B., L. Hays, and J. Phillips (2015). “Effects of Pistachios on Nutrient Intake and Diet Quality in Female
University Students,” poster presentation at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo, Nashville, Tennessee,
October.
Phillips, Jon C. and Fatima R. Tamayo (2014). “Student Evaluation of a Training Program in International Agricultural
Development,” poster presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, August.
Phillips, Jon C. and Adriana Ortega (2013).“Rating the Websites of Agricultural Experiment Stations,” poster presentation
at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Meetings, Washington, DC, August.
Wohlcke, Anne, Belinda Lopez, Chari Pradel, Claudia L. Pinter‐Lucke, Jon C. Phillips, Jonathan A. Nourse, Laura Fujimoto‐
Hernandez, Nancy M. Fan, Patricia A. de Freitas, and Richard A. Kallan (2012). “Engaging Faculty in Assessment of
General Education: A Case Study,” poster presentation at the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ General
Education and Assessment Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February.
Jon C. Phillips and Benjamin Lehan
Phillips, Jon C., Benjamin Lehan, Abraham Gomez, Cesar Martin, Soraya Nolasco, Chastity Rosales, Bryce von Helms, and
Dennis Wu (2015). “Shelton’s Poultry: A Business Strategy Case Study,” poster presentation at the Agricultural and
Applied Economics Association Meetings, San Francisco, California, July.
129 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings:
Jon C. Phillips
“Agricultural Product Safety Certification System.” Seminar presentation for representatives of the Urumqui (China) Agricultural and Pastoral Bureau, Pomona, California, December, 2018.
Overview of Research in Agribusiness in the US.” Seminar presentation for representatives of Shanghai Ocean University,
Pomona, California, July, 2015.
“Overview of US Government Agricultural Policy.” Seminar presentation for delegation of government reform
representatives of various provincial governments of China, Pomona, California July, 2015.
“Topics in Agriculture and U.S. Agricultural Policy.” One day seminar for a group of university faculty and government
representatives from Jiangsu Province, China. Burbank, California, March, 2015.
“Innovation in Agribusiness in the United States.” Seminar presentation to representatives of a privately‐owned,
diversified agricultural production company from central China. Pomona, California, December, 2014.
“Agribusiness in the U.S.” One day seminar for a group of equestrian veterinarians from Sinkiang Province, China.
Pomona, California, December, 2014.
“Agribusiness: logistics and distribution of grains.” Seminar presentation to a group grain logistics administrators from
various Chinese provinces. Pomona, California, November, 2014.
“Modern Agricultural Management Strategies.” Seminar presentation to representatives of the Dead Animal Disposal
Department of Shanghai, China. Pomona, California, November, 2014.
“Introduction to U.S. Modern Agriculture.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“Modern Agriculture Management Strategy.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“Government Policies for Family Farms.” Seminar presentation to a group of family farm technology specialists from
Jiangsu Province, China. Pomona, California, October, 2014.
“U.S. Policies on Agricultural Product Quality Control and Quality Management in Agribusiness.” One day seminar for a
group of government representatives from Jiangsu Province, China, Pomona, California, April, 2014.
“American Farm Development of Modern Agriculture and Modern Equipment and Training of Agricultural Science and
Technology Popularization and Application.” Two day workshop for representatives of the Chinese Ministry of
Agriculture, Beijing, China, Baldwin Park and Industry, California, January, 2014.
130 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Jon C. Phillips, continued
“Ecological Control and Prevention.” Seminar presentation to a group of municipal government representatives from
Shanghai, China, Pomona, California, November, 2013.
“Family Farms and Highly Specialized Agricultural Production in the U.S.” Seminar presentation to a delegation from the
Provincial Machinery Bureau of Jiangsu China, Industry, California, October, 2013.
“Modern Agricultural System Construction.” Lead instructor for a three‐day workshop for representatives of the Xinjiang
Production and Construction Corps, Xingjiang Uyger Autonomous Region of China, Pomona, California, September, 2013.
“Report from March 1, 2013 Faculty Workshop on Critical Thinking.” Presentation at the CSU Southern California Critical
Thinking Forum. Authors: Belinda Lopez, Jonathan A. Nourse, and Jon C. Phillips. April, 2013.
“U.S. Agricultural Programs, Facilities, and Field Research.” Seminar presentation to a group of representatives from the
Beijing Agriculture Bureau, Beijing, China, Pomona, California, November, 2012.
“Commercialized Family Farms, Specialized Agricultural Production, Mechanization of Agricultural Production and
Agribusiness Management in the U.S.” Two day workshop for a group of representatives from the Wuhan Municipal
Bureau of Agriculture, Wuhan, China. El Monte, California, December, 2012.
“U.S. Agricultural Resources and Its Market‐oriented Mode of Operation.” Seminar presentation to a group of
representatives from various agricultural companies and support organizations based in Ningxia, China. Pomona,
California, December, 2012.
Steven Archambault
“Fair Trade and Social Justice”, Theology on Tap, March 3, 2015. Las Cruces, NM. (invited talk)
“Nannochloropsis sp. algae for use as biofuel: Analyzing a translog production function using data from multiple sites in
the southwestern United States”, Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, November 21, 2014.
Albuquerque, NM. (invited talk)
“Beyond the Millennium Development Goals”, Rotary Club, March 4, 2014. Las Cruces, NM. (invited talk)
131 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Benjamin Lehan “Asian Citrus Psyllid and California’s Citrus Industry” – Guest Speaker, 2017 Landscape Convention, Long Beach. October
5, 2017
“Asian Citrus Psyllid and California’s Citrus Industry” – Guest Speaker, 2017 LA County Fair, Pomona. September 16, 22
“Improved methods for measuring pest density in a greenhouse setting” – Monique Chan, Priscilla Putzel, Benjamin
Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“Tamarixia radiata Fecundity and Various Intervals after Emergence”, Brooke Blandino, Nelly Moreno, Jasmine Lopez,
Benjamin Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“Assessing Diaphorina Citri Abdomen Coloration and Its Effect on Egg Load”, Rigo Cervantes, Rebecca Pry, Benjamin
Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“The Effects of Salicylic Acid (2‐Hydroxybenzoic acid) as a repellent on Murraya koenigii.” Ana Gomez, Benjamin Lehan.
Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“Effects of High Frequency Sinusoidal waves on the fecundity of Diaphorina citri.” Laura Dominik, James Robles,
Benjamin Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“Investigation the use of UV and LED light as a trapping method for Diaphorina citri in Rutacease.” Joe McClung, Kianna
Simpson, Benjamin Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“The Use of Pruning, Cytokinin Application, and Fertilizer Application to Increase Flush in Murraya koenigii ((L.)
(Rutaceae)) and Subsequent Egg Laying by ACP (Diaphorina citri, Kuwayama) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae)” Kat Nunez,
Benjamin Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1, 2017
“Determining the effect of juglone (5‐hydroxy‐1,4‐naphthoquinone) on gut microbiota of Diaphorina citri. “Mark
Mazhnyy, Omar Quiroz, Benjamin Lehan. Presented at the 2017 ACP Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. June 1,
2017
132 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Benjamin Lehan, continued “Maximizing the Production of Tamarixia radiata, a Biological Control Agent of the Asian Citrus Psyllid” – Valerie J.
Mellano, Anna L. Soper, Benjamin Lehan, Dani Ruais, David Morgan, Bryan Taylor, and Greg Simmons. Poster presented
at the 2016 ARI Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. November 3, 2016
“Studies to Increase Field Establishment of and Parasitism by Tamarixia radiata for Control of Asian Citrus Psyllid” –
Anna L. Soper, Valerie J. Mellano, Benjamin Lehan, Dani Ruais, David Morgan, Bryan Taylor, and Greg Simmons. Poster
presented at the 2016 ARI Research Symposium, Cal Poly Pomona. November 3, 2016
Mortality Rates of the Asian Citrus Psyllid Using Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, presented at the 2015 ARI Research
Symposium, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, oral presentation. November 9, 2015
Improving Monitoring Techniques of the Invasive Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer, Euwallacea sp., in Southern California,
poster presentation at the California Forest Pest Council Meeting, November, 2015
Mortality Rates of the Asian Citrus Psyllid Using Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, presented at the 2015 ACP Research
Sympos,ium, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, oral presentation. June 7, 2015
Dorothy M. Farias Farias, D.M. (2018, January). Seeds of Global Civilization. Guest Speaker Presentation for Cal Poly Pomona English
Language Institute students at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona. CA
Farias, D.M. (2017, May). Forces of Agricultural Policy Change. Guest Speaker Presentation for Cal Poly Pomona English
Language Institute students at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona. CA
Farias, D.M. (2017, February). Seeds of Global Civilization. Guest Speaker Presentation for Cal Poly Pomona English
Language Institute students at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona. CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, December). American agriculture financing strategies. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Xinjiang San Nong Countryside Credit Union at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH),
Carson CA
133 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Dorothy M. Farias, continued Farias, D.M. (2016, December). Agriculture finance management and service strategy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Xinjiang San Nong Countryside Credit Union at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA Farias, D.M. (2016, March). United States agricultural food safety monitoring and risk management. Guest Speaker
Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Zhejiang Food & Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez
Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, March). United States agricultural food safety management during outbreaks. Guest Speaker
Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Zhejiang Food & Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez
Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, March). Golden rice controversy and ethical issues. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State University Long Beach (CSULB), Long Beach CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, March). United States government regulations of GM foods. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State University Long Beach (CSULB), Long Beach CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, February). United States rice production and processing industry. Guest Speaker Presentation for
Chinese Agriculturalist Delegation at California State University Long Beach (CSULB), Long Beach CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, February). The history and development of rice cultivation in the United States. Guest Speaker
Presentation for Chinese Agriculturalist Delegation at California State University Long Beach (CSULB), Long Beach CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, January). United States agriculture and sustainable development. Guest Speaker Presentation for
Chinese Delegation from Xinjiang Agricultural Vocational Technical College at California State University Dominguez Hills
(CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2016, January). Effective Distribution of Agricultural Commodities. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Xinjiang Agricultural Vocational Technical College at California State University Dominguez Hills
(CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2015, November). Case Studies: FDA Food Safety Issues. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Hubei Food and Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
134 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Dorothy M. Farias, continued Farias, D.M. (2015, November). Emergency Management of Food Safety Outbreaks. Guest Speaker Presentation for
Chinese Delegation from Hubei Food and Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH),
Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2015, June). Agricultural Trade and Policy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Jiangsu
Grain Bureau at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2015, June). Grain Cooperatives as a marketing power. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation
from Jiangsu Grain Bureau at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2015, March). Regulation of Food Safety in the United States. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Hubei Food and Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2015, March). Risk management and food safety policy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation
from Hubei Food and Drug Administration at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2014, December). Agricultural cooperatives in the United States. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona CA
Farias, D.M. (2014, November). Small farm marketing of agricultural products. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona CA
Farias, D.M. (2014, November). United States agriculture production and international trade. Guest Speaker
Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Henan University of Agricultural Technology at California State University
Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2014, November). United States agriculture and food policy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Henan University of Agricultural Technology at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH),
Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2014, April). Direct marketing of agricultural products. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona CA
135 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Oral Presentations in Extension Settings continued:
Dorothy M. Farias, continued Farias, D.M. (2014, April). Agricultural cooperatives in the United States. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Agriculturalist Delegation at California State Polytechnic University Pomona (CPP), Pomona CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, November). United States agricultural food safety. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Shengqui City at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, November). United States food safety and modernization act: implementation and ramifications.
Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation from Shengqui City at California State University Dominguez Hills
(CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, October). United States agriculture and food policy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from Henan Province at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, October). United States agriculture production and international trade. Guest Speaker Presentation
for Chinese Delegation from Henan Province at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, October). Ethical issues in agriculture. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese Delegation from San
Men Xia City at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
Farias, D.M. (2013, October). United States agriculture and food policy. Guest Speaker Presentation for Chinese
Delegation from San Men Xia City at California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Carson CA
136 | P a g e
Appendix E – Department Research and Scholarly Activities, ‘12 – ‘18
Involvement with the Work of Graduate Students:
Student ABM Faculty
Member
Role of ABM Faculty Member Year of
graduation
Shannon
Smith Porter
Jon C. Phillips Research supervisor, committee
member, and collaborator on
multiple research outcomes
2013
Lauren Hays
Jon C. Phillips Major advisor, committee
member, and collaborator on
multiple research outcomes
2016
Ben Lehan
Jon C. Phillips Collaborator on poster presentation
at conference
2016
Sherafat Ulah
Khan
Jon C. Phillips Committee member ‐‐‐
Ashley Van
Vilet
Steven
Archambault
Committee member 2016
Christina
Romero
Steven
Archambault
Major advisor and committee
member
‐‐‐
Tony DeVeyra Steven
Archambault
Major advisor and committee
member
‐‐‐
Review of Scholarly Articles, Conference Proposals, etc.
Jon C. Phillips
Agriculture, an MDPI Journal (two articles)
Sustainability, an MDPI Journal (one article)
Steven Archambault
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (two articles) Land Economics, (two articles) Sustainability, an MDPI Journal (two articles)
137 | P a g e
Appendix F ‐ Faculty Service (Section 4.1.3)
University Service Jon C. Phillips URTPC (2015 – 2018) Academic Programs Assessment Committee (2017 – 2018) Academic Programs Standing Subcommittee of the Academic Senate (2015 ‐ 2017) Undergraduate Research Faculty Advisory Committee (2013 ‐ 2016) General Education Assessment Committee (2013 ‐ 2015) Retroactive Withdrawal Committee (2015) Faculty Data Champions Program (2017)
Benjamin Lehan PLT Researcher, Outreach Coordinator
Steven Archambault Associate Vice President search committee Faculty Data Champions Program (2017)
Dorothy M. Farias University Committee Member – Accessible Technology Initiative (2016 – Present)
Nancy Merlino Senator, Cal Poly Pomona Academic Senate University Budget Committee
Marguerite Mulhall Faculty Mentor ‐‐ Entrepreneurship in STEAM program, Student Innovation I‐Lab (2015‐2019)
College Service Jon C. Phillips College Assessment Coordinator (Liaison) (2016 – 2018) College of Agriculture Learning Measurement Committee (2017 – pres.) Associate Dean’s Search Committee (Co‐chair) (2015) Dean’s Performance Review Committee (2013) College Curriculum Committee (2012 – 2014) Dean’s Search Committee (2014)
Benjamin Lehan Agricultural Biology Club, Co Advisor Agribusiness Management Club, Co Advisor
138 | P a g e
Appendix F ‐ Faculty Service (Section 4.1.3)
College Service continued Katie Horvath Re‐branding Poly Pack to students and faculty
Marguerite Mulhall Budgetary Consultant to Dean Mary Holtz‐Clause 2016‐2017
Steven Archambault Urban Ag Committee Agriculture Research Institute Campus Director
Dorothy M. Farias Mentor to Focus on the Future (USDA Grant) student (2013 ‐ 2015) Faculty Advisor ‐ AG Council (2012 – 2016) Coordinator for ABM/AGS/PLT Dept. Student AG Career Day (2013 – 2014)
Nancy Merlino Semester conversion coordinator and trainer
Department Service Jon C. Phillips Department Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee (Agricultural Science) (2013 – 2015) ABM Major Scholarship Committee (2013 – pres.) Advisor, CPP National Agri‐Marketing Association Student Chapter (2014 – pres.) Faculty Search Committee, Agribusiness (2016 & 2018) Agribusiness Management Club, Co Advisor (2018 – pres.) National Agri‐Marketing Association (NAMA) Club primary advisor (2014 – pres.) NAMA Competition chaperone (2014, 2018) Food Distribution Research Society (FDRS) Competition chaperone (2014, 2015, and 2017) Semester Conversion, Wrote extended course outlines for one core ABM department course (2014‐2015)
Benjamin Lehan Agribusiness Management Club, Co Advisor (2018 – pres.)
Katie Horvath Volunteer for the ABM Club to take on field trips & conferences Work to keep Cal Poly alumni in constant communication with department (LinkedIn)
Steven Archambault Search committee department chair (twice) Search committee faculty (1 completed, one in progress) ABM Major Scholarship Committee (2017 – pres.)
139 | P a g e
Appendix F ‐ Faculty Service (Section 4.1.3)
Department Service continued Marguerite Mulhall ABM Major Scholarship Committee (2018) Faculty participant, Huntley College of Agriculture Open House (2018) Semester Conversion, Wrote extended course outlines for five core ABM department courses. (2014‐2015)
Dorothy M. Farias Advisor for Food Marketing & Agribusiness Management Club (ABM Club) (2011 ‐ 2018) Department Committee Member – Semester Conversion (2014 – 2018) Faculty Advisor –Agribusiness Management Club (2011 – 2018)
ABM Major Scholarship Committee (2013 – 2017)
Nancy Merlino ABM Major Scholarship Committee (2013 – 2017)
Other Universities’ Service Jon C. Phillips External Reviewer for Personnel Action: Candidate for promotion to full professor, Saint Joseph’s University, summer, 2016 External Reviewer for Personnel Action: Candidate for promotion to full professor, Missouri State University, summer, 2016 External Reviewer for Personnel Action: Candidate for promotion to full professor, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, summer, 2017
Industry Service Jon C. Phillips Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Alternate Public Member) (2012 – 2016) Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Public Member) (2016 – pres.) Raisin Administrative Committee (Public Member) (2006 – 2014)
Andy Anderson Past President, Inland Empire Chapter CalCPA Mentor Inland Empire Chapter CalCPA Chair Membership Committee Cal CPA Inland Empire Chapter Business&Industry Chair Inland Empire Chapter CalCPA Scholarship Committee Inland Empire Chapter CalCPA
Benjamin Lehan Western Plant Diagnostic Network, First Detector ‐ 2015 National Agri‐Marketing Association Member ‐ 2015
140 | P a g e
Appendix F ‐ Faculty Service (Section 4.1.3)
Industry Service continued Katie Horvath Certified production and pack house facilities with HACCP, PCQI. Run Quick Books for them.
Steven Archambault Reviewer for International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (1 per year) Reviewer for Sustainability (1 per year) Reviewer for Land Economcis (1 per year) Engagement with Heirtage Farmer's Markets, developing Urban Agriculture Economic Development Proposal for the City of Ontario Engagement with Heirtage Farmer's Markets and other business partners to build Urban Farm Development Project ideas Speaker/Working group member for LA Food Policy Council (Urban Agriculture)
Dorothy M. Farias Advisor for Produce Marketing Association student conference program (PMA) (2012 ‐ 2018) Student Team Advisor Superzoo Retail Pet Expo/Horn Inc. (2013 ‐ 2018)
Community Service Jon C. Phillips Collegewood Elementary (Walnut Valley Unified School District), fundraising volunteer (2013 & 2014) Faith Lutheran Church (San Dimas), volunteer for community garden (2012 – 2014)
Benjamin Lehan San Bernardino County Library Volunteer
Andy Anderson Financial Literacy instructor for CalCPA at various locations including, colleges, universities, high schools and senior citizen centers.
Katie Horvath Volunteer at daughter’s school teaching them how to grow produce in their classroom. Teach for Free at Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University to help assists other on creating & managing a budget.
Nicole Hammack Girl Scouts of America, Troop Leader 2011‐present Boy Scouts of America, Pack Officer 2011‐2013 Little League, Board Member and Team Mom AYSO, Team Mom 2018 Don Benito, Elementary School, Room Parent 2009‐2017
141 | P a g e
Appendix F ‐ Faculty Service (Section 4.1.3)
Community Service continued
Steven Archambault Tee ball coach, Claremont, California
Collaboration with other Departments & Colleges Jon C. Phillips Science, Technology, and Society (STS) Advisory Committee (2011 – pres.) Faculty Search Committee for Urban Agriculture (2014) Thesis Committee member for M.S. in Agriculture, Plant Science option student (2018 – pres.) Co‐PI for Healthy Soils Initiative CDFA grant (Dr. Aaron Fox (Plant Science) is PI.) (2018 – pres.)
Planned Service Andy Anderson Promoting CalCPA financial literacy programs to various schools and locations
Katie Horvath Creating a budget and calendar to strategically take students to symposiums, conferences and tradeshows for more networking and test their skills in real world situations. Est. 4 trips next year.
142 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Faculty Data Champions Report October, 2017
By Jon C. Phillips, Ph.D.
Introduction
University faculty and administrators are increasingly concerned about student success (Ruecker, et al, 2017). We should
be, as external stakeholders are more forthcoming with their requests for value and accountability in higher education.
Student success in various higher education contexts has been studied extensively. Bensimon (2007) examined the value
of practitioner knowledge in the promotion of student success. Morrison and Cowles (2017) looked specifically at what
influences success among students in enabling programs. Perna and Thomas (2006) introduced a framework for
reducing the achievement gap among specified groups of students within higher education. Wyatt (2011) examined
ways to increase retention and student success of nontraditional students. This work informed the design of this study.
In particular, it helped to determine the variables selected as potentially explaining differences in selected measures of
student success.
How does one define student success, though? We can suggest three different measures. One basic measure would be
persistence as a full‐time college student. For the sake of precision, let’s further define persistence as three years of
continuous enrollment at least half‐time as a college student, not including summers. A second definition would be
whether students who enter as freshmen graduate within four years. (To be concise and accurate, we will call students
who enter as freshmen ‘native students.’) A native student who graduates within four years comes in, focuses on
academics, and successfully completes a degree program, according to a well‐defined and direct path. Transfer students
typically take two years of courses at a community college and then register for classes at Cal Poly Pomona. So for
transfer students, a four‐year graduation rate would not be applicable. Instead, a two‐year graduation rate is the
appropriate measure for transfer students.
Now, consider what may affect these measures of student success. One factor would be whether the student is a
veteran of the U.S. military when s/he starts at Cal Poly Pomona. Other relevant variables would be:
Transfer GPA (for transfer students),
High school GPA,
SAT composite score, (for native students)
ACT composite score, (for native students)
Department of the student’s major when s/he enters Cal Poly Pomona,
Gender,
Age of the student, and
Whether a native student lives in a residence hall his/her first year.
All of these attributes and more are possible determinants of student success.
143 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Research Question
Having characterized student success as persistence and graduation rates, we can specify our research question:
Which factors affect student success?
The factors considered are the academic organization that contains the students’ majors, gender, high school GPA,
transfer GPA (for transfer students), SAT composite score (for native students), ACT composite score (for native
students), and veteran status. For the factors that are significant influencers of student success, we will determine
whether the affect is positive or negative. We didn’t have data on the ages of students or whether native students lived
in a residence hall during their freshman year. These factors were not considered, therefore.
Data
We utilize data on undergraduate students’ enrollment in each quarter and data on students who graduated from Cal Poly Pomona. Native students and transfer students are separated based on their status when they first enrolled in Cal Poly Pomona.
In order to measure students’ academic success, we employ two different binary metrics for native students and
another binary metric for transfer students. For native students, we use three‐year persistence and four‐year graduation
to measure student success. Three‐year persistence is obtained by determining whether a given student was enrolled in
at least six units for each of nine quarters (equivalent to three years), considering only fall, winter, and spring. Four‐year
graduation is obtained by verifying whether a given student has obtained a degree within four years. For transfer
students, we use two‐year graduation to measure student success. This is obtained by verifying whether a given transfer
student has earned a degree within two years.
Data pertaining to student characteristics, course loads, and graduation was obtained from the applicable university
office. Since the most recent academic year in the data is AY 2015‐2016, the number of cohorts varies across samples
used to analyze the three measures. For three‐year persistence and for four‐year graduation, the sample includes native
students entering Cal Poly Pomona from year 2010‐2011 to year 2013‐2014. We only included native students who
started during a fall quarter in our analysis. For two‐year graduation, the sample includes transfer students entering Cal
Poly Pomona from year 2010‐2011 to year 2014‐2015. We included transfer students who started in fall, winter, and
spring quarters in our analysis. Table 1 below lists the sample size for each cohort, including natives and transfers.
144 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Table 1. Sample sizes for groups of students included in the analysis.
Type of student, when
first registering
Year Quarter Number of students
Native 2010 Fall 2,019
2011 3,249
2012 3,120
2013 3,257
Transfer 2010 Fall 1,506
2011 Winter 422
2011 Spring 612
2011 Fall 1,399
2012 Winter 431
2012 Spring 487
2012 Fall 2,093
2013 Winter 38
2013 Spring 8
2013 Fall 2,487
2014 Winter 329
2014 Spring 12
2014 Fall 2,653
Methodology
We use regression analysis to determine the relationship between a student’s success and his/her characteristics. Specifically, we analyze how the three success measures are correlated to a student’s academic department, gender, ethnicity, high school GPA, SAT and ACT scores (for native students) or transfer GPA (for transfer students), residency (i.e., in California or another jurisdiction), and military status (veteran or not). We determine these characteristics based on the enrollment data of each student when he/she enters Cal Poly Pomona for the first time. We use binary explanatory variables to represent department, gender, ethnicity, residency, and military status, which are categorical variables.
Note that the success measures are dichotomous variables; each measure equals either 0 or 1 based on whether student success is achieved. Because the response variables are binary, linear regression is not suitable for our analysis. Instead, we utilize logistic regression, whose response variable can be dichotomous. Logistic regression can be used to analyze the relationship between the dichotomous response variable and one or more explanatory variables (Fox, 2016). It estimates the probability of the dichotomous variable being 1 by using the logistic cumulative density function, and the logistic regression fits its model to data by the method of maximum likelihood. Since the logistic function is closely
tied to log‐odds, i.e.,log , where denotes the probability, the estimated coefficients must be interpreted as
145 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
effects on log‐odds. Nevertheless, the sign of a coefficient can be interpreted as the direction of its effect on the
probability (Fox, 2016).
Results
Regarding persistence for three years, there was a substantial amount of variability across academic departments.
Exhibit 1 below shows the results for three‐year persistence among native students, by academic department. Six
different departments had persistence at a rate greater than 80%, with Civil Engineering being the highest at 85%. On
the other end of the scale was Philosophy, with a persistence rate of 61.5%. The four‐year graduation rate for natives
appears in Exhibit 2. Once again, there is substantial variability in this measure, by department. Hotel and Restaurant
Management has the highest four‐year graduation rate, at 36%. Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, in contrast,
has the lowest four‐year graduation rate, at 4%. Among the three measures of student success, 2‐year graduation for
transfers had the most variability, by department, as indicated in Exhibit 3. The highest two‐year graduation rate was for
the Anthropology and Geography Department (49%). The lowest was for Chemical and Materials Engineering (0%),
which was surprising.
146 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
147 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
As indicated in Table 2, the students from a number of departments had 3‐year persistence that was significantly
different from the students that entered under University Programs. (University Programs is a catch‐all category that
includes undeclared students, a small interdisciplinary program, university employees without a declared major taking
classes as part of a fee‐waiver program, high school students taking university classes, and students from other CSU
campuses taking classes under a course match program.) Native Civil Engineering students were more likely to persist
for three years, at a .01 significance. A number of other departments were significantly different at the .05 level. These
included Animal and Veterinary Science, Biological Sciences, Kinesiology & Health Promotion, and Liberal Studies. Hotel
and Restaurant Management students differed at a .1 significance level. All of the departments listed above had a
positive effect on 3‐year persistence, compared to University Programs students.
Some other variables also had significant effects on 3‐year persistence. The male gender was significant at the .01 level.
Being male had a negative effect on three‐year persistence. In terms of ethnicity, ‘Asian only’ had a positive effect on
three‐year persistence, significant at the .05 level. High school GPA, SAT composite score, and ACT composite score all
had a positive effect, significant at the .01 level. This would be expected for these three measures of academic
performance.
148 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Table 2. Regression results for three‐year persistence for native students (i.e., non‐transfer students). Note: ‘academic
organizations’ (i.e., departments) are listed, not majors.
Explanatory variable Direction of causality P‐value
Significant at p < .01
Civil Engineering Positive .001
Male ‐ gender Negative .00000
High school GPA Positive .000
SAT composite score Positive .00000
ACT composite score Positive .00001
Significant at p < .05
Animal & Veterinary Science Positive .024
Biological Sciences Positive .021
Kinesiology & Health Promotion Positive .024
Liberal Studies Positive .022
Asian only ‐ ethnicity Positive .018
Significant at p < .1
Hotel and Restaurant Mgmt. Positive .054
Now let’s consider the results for 4‐year graduation rate for native students. A number of departments had an effect,
either positive or negative, on the 4‐year graduation rate. The applicable departments, the significance of their effects,
and the direction of the effects appear in Table 3. Regarding gender, being male had a negative effect on the four‐year
graduation rate, significant at the .01 level. The results for high school GPA, SAT composite score, and ACT composite
score were that they all had a positive effect, significant at the .01 level.
149 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Table 3. Regression results for four‐year graduation rates for native students (i.e., non‐transfer students). Note:
‘academic organizations’ (i.e., departments) are listed, not majors.
Explanatory variable Direction of causality P‐value
Significant at p < .01
All College – Business
Administration
Positive .00000
Animal & Veterinary Science Positive .006
Anthropology & Geography Positive .0001
Apparel Merchandising and
Mgmt.
Positive .0003
Architecture Negative .00000
Communication Positive .00000
Electro‐Mechanical Engineering
Tech.
Negative .001
English & Foreign Languages Positive .0001
History Positive .001
Hotel and Restaurant Mgmt. Positive .000
Human Nutrition & Food
Science
Positive .0001
Kinesiology & Health Promotion Positive .00004
Liberal Studies Positive .000
Mechanical Engineering Negative .00002
Political Science Positive .000
Psychology & Sociology Positive .000
Urban & Regional Planning Positive .006
Male ‐ gender Negative .00002
High school GPA Positive .000
SAT composite score Positive .000
ACT composite score Positive .00000
Significant at p < .05
Aerospace Engineering Negative .025
Chemistry and Biochemistry Negative .030
Civil Engineering Negative .044
Industrial & Manufacturing
Engineering
Negative .015
Significant at p < .1
Ethnic & Women’s Studies Positive .052
Theater & New Dance Positive .069
150 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
The results for the 2‐year graduation rate for transfer students are similar, but with a few notable differences. The
departments that had a significant effect on 2‐year graduation rate for transfer students are listed in Table 4. The level
of significance for each department and the direction of the effect also appear in Table 4. Gender, ethnicity, and high
school GPA had no significant effect on 2‐year graduation rate for transfer students. This is in contrast to the results for
4‐year graduation rate for native students. Transfer GPA, however, had a positive effect on 2‐year graduation rate for
transfers, significant at the .01 level.
Table 4. Regression results for two‐year graduation rates for transfer students. Note: ‘academic organizations’ (i.e.,
departments) are listed, not majors.
Explanatory variable Direction of causality P‐value
Significant at p < .01
Aerospace Engineering Negative .001
Architecture Negative .002
Art Negative .001
Civil Engineering Negative .0001
Electrical & Computer
Engineering
Negative .00001
Electro‐Mechanical Engineering
Tech.
Negative .002
Industrial & Manufacturing
Engineering
Negative .006
Landscape Architecture Negative .0005
Mechanical Engineering Negative .00001
Urban & Regional Planning Negative .006
Transfer GPA Positive .000
Significant at p < .05
Animal & Veterinary Science Negative .017
Anthropology & Geography Positive .020
Human Nutrition & Food
Science
Negative .030
Kinesiology & Health Promotion Negative .016
Physics & Astronomy Negative .046
Political Science Positive .031
Veteran Positive .011
Significant at p < .1
Chemistry and Biochemistry Negative .074
Ethnic & Women’s Studies Positive .078
Liberal Studies Positive .053
Music Negative .057
151 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Detailed information concerning the regression results for the three measures of student success is included in the
appendix.
Discussion
There was a positive effect on persistence for the departments whose majors are impacted. These departments can
effectively screen out students who are less likely to persist for three years. Some departments that are not impacted,
however, had a positive effect on their students’ persistence.
When it comes to the 4‐year graduation rate, the effect depended largely on the number of units required by the
applicable majors. The departments with majors that require more than 180 units tended to have a negative effect on 4‐
year graduation rate. There were a number of departments whose majors require 180 units that had a positive effect on
the 4‐year graduation rate, however.
Twenty‐three departments had a significant effect on the 4‐year graduation rate of native students. Just 20
departments, in contrast, had a significant effect on the 2‐year graduation rate of transfers. The effect of the
departments on the 2‐year graduation rate for transfers was not as clear‐cut. We didn’t see the same breakdown of
effects based on the number of units required by the applicable majors. Specifically, the departments that require more
than 180 units still had a negative effect, but some of the departments that require 180 units also had a negative effect.
It was surprising that while Transfer GPA had a significant effect on the 2‐year graduation rate for transfers, high school
GPA did not have a significant effect. One way to look at it is that academic performance during the student’s
attendance at his/her community college washes away the effect of his/her academic performance during high school.
The results for gender are worthy of discussion. Gender‐male had a significant and negative effect on student success
for native students. This applied to 3‐year persistence as well as 4‐year graduation. There was no significant difference,
however, between the 2‐year graduation rates of male transfer students, compared to female transfer students.
Perhaps males are still maturing, mentally and/or emotionally, when they are ~18 ‐ ~21 years old. And perhaps by the
time students are ready to transfer to Cal Poly Pomona, males are as mentally/emotionally mature as females. There is
another alternative, though. It may be that there is a certain group of males that is not going to demonstrate success.
This group of males is going to drop out within their first two years of college, regardless of whether they start at a
community college or Cal Poly Pomona.
There weren’t many significant results related to ethnicity. The native students who indicated ‘Asian‐only’ were more
likely to persist for three years. There was no effect of ethnicity on either of the graduation rates, in contrast. Finally,
veteran status was not a significant determinant of either of the measures of student success for native students. Being
a veteran, however, was a positive influence on the two‐year graduation rate of transfers.
152 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Actionable Recommendations and Areas for Future Research
Some of the departments with majors that are impacted are significant positive factors for three‐year persistence of
native students. (See Table 2.) We would expect that result. Some departments with impacted majors, however, are not
significant influencers of three‐year persistence. Those departments may benefit by examining what is different
between them and the departments with impacted majors that are listed in Table 2. For example, there may be issues
with the curricula that are causing students to not persist at a level that would be expected, or there may be
consequential differences in services provided to students.
There are also two departments, Hotel and Restaurant Management and Liberal Studies, with a positive effect on three‐
year persistence. We need to know whether these departments are doing something different that results in their
students persisting at a rate that is higher than expected.
As mentioned, number of units required has an important influence on four‐year graduation rates for native students.
All majors in the College of Engineering require more than 180 units to graduate. Most, but not all, departments in the
College of Engineering have a significant negative influence on four‐year graduation rates. The two that do not are
Chemical and Materials Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering. This is something to examine in detail.
The departments that require more than 180 units that have a negative influence on four‐year graduation rates should
look at what is different between them and the departments that require more than 180 units that do not have a
negative influence.
Several departments have a positive influence on the four‐year graduation rate of native students, but do not have a
significant influence on the two‐year graduation rate of transfers. These departments are: All College – Business
Administration, Apparel Merchandising and Management, Communication, English and Foreign Languages, History,
Psychology and Sociology, and Theater and New Dance. Worse still, a number of departments have a positive effect on
the four‐year graduation rate of native students, but a negative effect on the two‐year graduation rate of transfers.
These departments are Animal and Veterinary Science, Human Nutrition and Food Science, Kinesiology and Health
Promotion, and Urban and Regional Planning. All of these departments need to determine if they can match the success
that they show with native students, when it comes to transfer students.
An area for future research would be to do the same study again, using a different period. In other words, the students
in the sample could be students that started after 2014. In order to do that, however, sufficient time has to elapse to
allow students the chance to study for four years and graduate (or not). It also may be beneficial to do a similar study
with different measures of student success. For example, instead of registering for at least six units per quarter, the
standard for persistence could be registering for at least 12 units per quarter. Studies that used different lengths of time
for graduation may also be informative. For example, using 5‐year or 6‐year graduation rates for native students may
provide different insights. The same could be said for using graduation rates for periods longer than two years, for
transfer students.
153 | P a g e
Appendix G: Report on student persistence and graduation rates at Cal Poly Pomona (Sec. 4.2)
Limitations
One limitation is that we only had data for a restricted number of variables. One other variable that may have had an
influence on the student success measures was age. Another was whether native students lived in a residence hall on
campus during their first year. We did not have access to data for those variables. Another limitation is that by using
logistic regression, the coefficients that resulted did not lend themselves to intuitive interpretations.
References
Bensimon, Estela Maria. (2007). “The Underestimated Significance of Practitioner Knowledge in the Scholarship of
Student Success.” The Review of Higher Education, V. 30, No. 4, pp. 441 – 469, Summer.
Fox, John. (2016). Applied Regression Analysis & Generalized Linear Models. Third Edition. Sage, Los Angeles.
Morison, Anthony & Kym Cowles. (2017). “An Exploration of Factors Associated With Student Attrition and Success in
Enabling Programs.” Issues in Educational Research. V. 27, No. 2, pp. 330 – 346.
Perna, L. W., & S. L. Thomas. (2006). “A Framework for Reducing the College Success Gap and Promoting Success for All.”
National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/328.
Ruecker, Todd, Dawn Shepherd, Heidi Estrem, and Beth Brunk‐Chavez. (2017). Retention, Persistence, and Writing
Programs. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Page 4. April 1.
Wyatt, Linda G. (2011). “Nontraditional Student Engagement: Increasing Adult Student Success and Retention.” The
Journal of Continuing Higher Education. V. 59, No. 1.
154 | P a g e
Appendix H:
Persistence rates for various groups in Cal Poly Pomona and the Huntley College of
Agriculture (Retention)
Table H1 – College Persistence Rates by Year, All Students
All
College Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 78.7% 67.8% 64.9% 45.0% 21.3% 6.4% 3.5% 0.5%
Fall 2006 77.9% 69.7% 67.2% 53.3% 25.6% 10.3% 5.6% 2.1% 0.5% 0.5%
Fall 2007 84.7% 77.3% 72.9% 53.3% 25.1% 8.6% 3.5% 2.0% 0.4%
Fall 2008 82.2% 77.4% 75.0% 59.6% 30.3% 11.1% 2.9%
Fall 2009 92.6% 88.2% 84.2% 63.5% 25.1% 3.4% 1.5%
Fall 2010 90.1% 90.1% 88.1% 57.6% 15.2% 3.3% 0.7%
Fall 2011 89.2% 83.6% 78.1% 48.3% 13.8% 5.2%
Fall 2012 91.5% 88.9% 87.2% 51.7% 13.7%
Fall 2013 90.9% 83.5% 82.3% 49.2%
Fall 2014 84.8% 78.8% 75.4%
Fall 2015 87.7% 83.1%
Fall 2016 84.1%
Table H2 – University Persistence Rates by Year, All Students
All
University Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 78.4% 71.7% 65.7% 50.5% 25.0% 9.5% 4.3% 2.0% 0.8% 0.6%
Fall 2006 79.7% 72.2% 67.9% 54.1% 26.7% 11.2% 4.9% 2.1% 1.0% 0.4%
Fall 2007 80.0% 71.9% 68.3% 56.1% 28.7% 10.8% 4.1% 1.5% 0.8% 0.5%
Fall 2008 85.1% 77.4% 73.2% 59.5% 29.7% 11.6% 4.1% 1.5% 0.9%
Fall 2009 88.0% 81.8% 78.4% 60.9% 29.4% 9.7% 3.6% 1.5%
Fall 2010 90.0% 84.3% 79.8% 59.6% 23.7% 7.3% 2.0%
Fall 2011 88.8% 82.1% 77.5% 57.6% 22.9% 7.0%
Fall 2012 90.1% 84.8% 80.9% 56.9% 18.1%
Fall 2013 89.0% 82.7% 79.6% 54.0%
Fall 2014 88.6% 81.6% 77.0%
Fall 2015 89.1% 82.7%
Fall 2016 86.6%
155 | P a g e
Table H3 – College Persistence Rates by Year, Female Students
Female
College Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 80.2% 69.5% 66.5% 45.5% 21.6% 6.6% 3.6% 0.6%
Fall 2006 80.6% 71.0% 69.0% 54.2% 25.8% 11.0% 5.2% 1.3%
Fall 2007 84.5% 77.6% 74.0% 52.5% 24.7% 8.7% 4.1% 1.8%
Fall 2008 83.0% 78.7% 75.5% 59.6% 30.3% 10.6% 2.7%
Fall 2009 93.1% 90.3% 86.9% 65.1% 24.6% 2.9% 1.7%
Fall 2010 90.6% 89.8% 88.2% 56.7% 14.2% 3.1% 0.8%
Fall 2011 90.2% 85.7% 82.6% 51.3% 16.1% 5.8%
Fall 2012 91.8% 90.3% 88.8% 52.0% 12.8%
Fall 2013 92.0% 86.5% 84.5% 50.0%
Fall 2014 85.1% 78.6% 74.9%
Fall 2015 87.6% 83.3%
Fall 2016 87.1%
Table H4 – University Persistence Rates by Year, Female Students
Female
University Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2007 82.0% 74.9% 72.1% 54.9% 23.0% 7.7% 2.5% 0.8% 0.1%
Fall 2008 85.3% 77.5% 74.4% 57.1% 23.4% 7.4% 2.0% 0.6% 0.2%
Fall 2009 89.3% 83.1% 79.9% 55.1% 21.6% 5.8% 2.5% 1.0%
Fall 2010 91.0% 87.7% 82.8% 56.9% 19.2% 5.4% 1.1%
Fall 2011 88.5% 82.2% 79.2% 54.2% 18.3% 4.6%
Fall 2012 92.1% 88.1% 84.7% 55.5% 15.6%
Fall 2013 89.2% 83.1% 80.6% 50.1%
Fall 2014 88.4% 82.7% 78.8%
Fall 2015 90.4% 84.5%
Fall 2016 87.3%
156 | P a g e
Table H5 – College Persistence Rates by Year, URM Students
URM
College of Agriculture Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 70.5% 61.5% 56.4% 48.7% 19.2% 5.1% 2.6% 1.3%
Fall 2006 76.5% 66.7% 65.4% 58.0% 29.6% 12.3% 6.2% 3.7%
Fall 2007 80.8% 70.2% 69.2% 57.7% 35.6% 12.5% 3.8% 1.9%
Fall 2008 82.4% 78.8% 77.6% 67.1% 37.6% 17.6% 2.4%
Fall 2009 90.0% 88.9% 83.3% 71.1% 27.8% 4.4% 1.1%
Fall 2010 89.1% 89.1% 89.1% 61.8% 16.4% 5.5% 1.8%
Fall 2011 89.1% 84.5% 79.8% 54.3% 15.5% 7.0%
Fall 2012 92.6% 89.4% 88.3% 62.8% 18.1%
Fall 2013 89.7% 81.0% 81.7% 57.1%
Fall 2014 84.3% 76.4% 74.0%
Fall 2015 84.5% 81.9%
Fall 2016 80.7%
Table H6 – University Persistence Rates by Year, URM Students
URM
University Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 72.7% 65.0% 58.8% 47.9% 27.1% 11.8% 4.8% 2.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Fall 2006 76.3% 68.4% 63.8% 53.5% 28.4% 12.3% 5.5% 2.2% 0.8% 0.3%
Fall 2007 76.5% 66.8% 62.5% 54.2% 31.1% 12.0% 4.9% 2.2% 1.2% 0.6%
Fall 2008 84.8% 74.8% 70.9% 59.9% 33.9% 14.7% 5.2% 2.1% 1.2%
Fall 2009 85.6% 78.3% 74.3% 61.6% 31.4% 11.1% 4.1% 1.8%
Fall 2010 88.1% 82.1% 76.7% 61.3% 26.3% 10.3% 3.1%
Fall 2011 85.3% 78.1% 72.9% 58.0% 26.1% 8.8%
Fall 2012 88.3% 83.0% 78.5% 59.3% 21.3%
Fall 2013 87.8% 80.4% 77.2% 56.1%
Fall 2014 86.1% 79.1% 74.3%
Fall 2015 86.5% 79.3%
Fall 2016 83.4%
157 | P a g e
Table H7 – College Persistence Rates by Year, African American Students
African American
College Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 42.9%
Fall 2006 81.8% 54.5% 54.5% 54.5% 36.4% 9.1%
Fall 2007 77.8% 77.8% 77.8% 66.7% 66.7% 11.1%
Fall 2008 100.0% 85.7% 85.7% 57.1% 28.6%
Fall 2009 90.9% 90.9% 81.8% 45.5% 27.3% 9.1%
Fall 2010 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% 60.0%
Fall 2011 77.8% 55.6% 55.6% 33.3% 11.1%
Fall 2012 83.3% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 16.7%
Fall 2013 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 66.7%
Fall 2014 100.0% 80.0% 80.0%
Fall 2015 75.0% 62.5%
Fall 2016 65.0%
Table H8 – University Persistence Rates by Year, African American Students
African American
University Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 80.2% 71.6% 69.8% 56.0% 34.5% 17.2% 4.3% 0.9%
0.9%
Fall 2006 78.6% 72.5% 72.5% 57.3% 26.0% 10.7% 3.1%
Fall 2007 78.9% 69.9% 65.9% 55.3% 34.1% 16.3% 8.9% 1.6% 2.4% 0.8%
Fall 2008 84.2% 72.6% 65.3% 51.6% 28.4% 13.7% 11.6% 3.2%
Fall 2009 86.7% 83.3% 81.1% 67.8% 35.6% 13.3% 2.2%
Fall 2010 82.8% 79.7% 75.0% 67.2% 31.3% 15.6% 3.1%
Fall 2011 84.7% 75.7% 71.2% 56.8% 24.3% 9.9%
Fall 2012 90.3% 82.5% 79.6% 58.3% 22.3%
Fall 2013 83.6% 77.9% 73.8% 52.5%
Fall 2014 83.1% 81.0% 75.4%
Fall 2015 82.5% 75.8%
Fall 2016 73.1%
158 | P a g e
Table H9 – College Persistence Rates by Year, Hispanic / Latino Students
Hispanic / Latino
College of Agriculture Persistence
Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 71.8% 64.2% 57.5% 46.9% 26.2% 11.2% 4.9% 2.2% 1.2% 1.1%
Fall 2006 76.0% 67.9% 62.7% 53.0% 28.7% 12.3% 5.9% 2.5% 0.9% 0.3%
Fall 2007 76.3% 66.4% 62.1% 54.4% 30.9% 11.8% 4.5% 2.3% 1.1% 0.6%
Fall 2008 84.9% 75.3% 71.7% 61.0% 34.5% 15.0% 4.6% 2.0% 1.3%
Fall 2009 85.6% 77.7% 73.9% 61.5% 31.4% 11.1% 4.3% 2.0%
Fall 2010 88.3% 82.0% 76.6% 60.7% 25.7% 9.4% 3.2%
Fall 2011 85.0% 78.1% 73.2% 58.8% 26.6% 8.8%
Fall 2012 88.4% 83.3% 78.5% 59.9% 21.5%
Fall 2013 87.9% 80.4% 77.2% 56.3%
Fall 2014 87.0% 79.6% 75.0%
Fall 2015 86.9% 79.4%
Fall 2016 84.2%
Table H10 – University Persistence Rates by Year, Hispanic / Latino Students
Hispanic / Latino
University Persistence Rates by Year
Students Retention Rates
Cohort Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Fall 2005 69.0% 59.2% 53.5% 45.1% 16.9% 5.6% 2.8% 1.4%
Fall 2006 75.4% 68.1% 66.7% 58.0% 29.0% 13.0% 7.2% 4.3%
Fall 2007 81.3% 69.2% 69.2% 59.3% 34.1% 13.2% 4.4% 2.2%
Fall 2008 80.5% 77.9% 76.6% 67.5% 39.0% 19.5% 2.6%
Fall 2009 89.7% 91.2% 86.8% 80.9% 30.9% 4.4% 1.5%
Fall 2010 89.6% 89.6% 89.6% 60.4% 18.8% 6.3% 2.1%
Fall 2011 89.0% 86.2% 80.7% 57.8% 16.5% 7.3%
Fall 2012 93.6% 92.3% 92.3% 65.4% 19.2%
Fall 2013 89.2% 79.3% 80.2% 55.0%
Fall 2014 86.5% 78.4% 76.6%
Fall 2015 85.1% 82.2%
Fall 2016 82.4%
159 | P a g e
Appendix I:
Comparison of Quarter Courses and Semester Courses in the ABM Program
Table I1: Core courses under quarters
Quarter
ABM
Course
Quarter Course Title ¼
Units
Equivalent
Semester
Courses
Semester Course Title Sem.
Units
Sem. To ¼
Units
AG 100 Orientation to the College
of Agriculture 1 AG 1000 Orientation to Agricultural
Science 1 1.5
AG 101 Agriculture and the
Modern World 4 AG 1010 Agriculture in the Modern
World 3 4.5
IA 101 Global Resources for Food 4 AG 2010 Global Resources for Food 3 4.5
AG 128 Computer Applications for
Agriculture 3 AG 1280 Computer Applications for
Agriculture 3 4.5
ABM 201 Managing Agribusiness
Organizations 3 ABM 2010 Agribusiness Organizations
and Careers 3 4.5
ABM 224 Accounting for
Agribusiness 4 ABM 2240 Accounting for Agribusiness
I 3 4.5
ABM 304 Food and Agribusiness
Marketing 4 ABM 3040 Food and Agribusiness
Marketing 3 4.5
ABM 306 Wholesaling and Retailing
of Food Products 4 ABM 3060 Wholesaling and Retailing
of Food Products 3 4.5
ABM 309 Sales and Advertising
Management 4 ABM 3090 Promotion and Advertising
for Agribusiness 3 4.5
ABM 311 Applied Economics for
Agribusiness 4 ABM 3110 Applied Economics for
Agribusiness 3 4.5
ABM 313 Politics of Food and
Agriculture 3 ABM 3130 Food and Agriculture Policy 3 4.5
ABM 326 Financial Analysis for
Agribusiness 4 ABM 3260 Financial Analysis for
Agribusiness 3 4.5
ABM 375 Data Management for
Agribusiness 4 ABM 3750 Data Management for
Agribusiness 3 4.5
ABM 402 Agribusiness Personnel
Management 4 ABM 4020 Agribusiness Personnel
Management 3 4.5
AG 464 Development of
Leadership Skills 3 AG 4640 Development of Leadership
Skills in Agriculture 3 4.5
ABM 490 Senior Feasibility Study 3 ABM 4900 Agribusiness Senior
Feasibility Study 3 4.5
160 | P a g e
Table I2: Support courses under quarters
1/4
Support
Courses
Quarter Course Title
1/4
units
Equivalent
Core Sem.
Courses
Sem. Course Title Sem.
Units
Sem. to
1/4 units
AG 401 Ethical Issues in Food,
Agricultural, and
Apparel Industries
4 AG 4010 Ethical Issues in Food,
Agricultural, and Apparel
Industries
3 4.5
EC 201 Principles of
Economics 4 EC 2201 Principles of
Microeconomics 3 4.5
STA 120 Statistics with
Applications 4 STA 1200 Statistics with
Applications 3 4.5
a) FRL 201 or
b) FST 322
a) Legal Environment
of Business
Transactions or b)
Food Laws and
Regulations
4 ABM 4130 Agricultural Law and
Compliance
3 4.5
Table I3: New courses under semesters
1/4 ABM
Courses
Quarter Course Title
1/4
units
Semester
Courses
Semester Course
Title
Sem.
Units
Semester
to 1/4 units N/A N/A N/A ABM 2260 Accounting for
Agribusiness II
3 4.5
N/A N/A N/A ABM 3100 Sales and Professional
Development for
Agribusiness
3 4.5
